this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
76 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2245 readers
31 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

LEESBURG, Va. — After two days of testimony, the man who shot a 21-year-old YouTuber inside Dulles Town Center on video in April has been found not guilty on two charges of malicious wounding.

The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding, however, he was found guilty of firing a gun inside the mall. That guilty verdict has been set aside until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.

Colie, a DoorDash driver, was on trial for shooting Tanner Cook, the man behind the YouTube channel "Classified Goons," at the Dulles Town Center back in April. Colie admitted to shooting Cook when he took the stand Wednesday but claimed it was self-defense.

The case went viral not because there was a shooting inside a mall, but because Cook is known to make prank videos. Cook amassed 55,000 subscribers with an average income of up to $3,000 per month. He said he elicits responses to entertain viewers and called his pranks “comedy content.”

Colie faced three charges, including aggravated malicious wounding, malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling, and use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding. The jury had to weigh different factors including if Colie had malicious intent and had reasonable fear of imminent danger of bodily harm.

Cook was in the courtroom when jurors were shown footage of him getting shot near the stomach -- a video that has not yet been made public. Cook's mother, however, left the courtroom to avoid watching the key piece of evidence in her son's shooting.

The footage was recorded by one of Cook's friends, who was helping to record a prank video for Cook's channel. The video shows Cook holding his phone near Colie’s ear and using Google Translate to play a phrase out loud four times, while Colie backed away.

When he testified, Colie recalled how Cook and his friend approached him from behind and put the phone about 6 inches away from his face. He described feeling confused by the phrase Cook was playing. Colie told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.” He also acknowledged carrying a gun during work as a way to protect himself after seeing reports of other delivery service drivers being robbed.

"Colie walked into the mall to do his job with no intention of interacting with Tanner Cook. None," Adam Pouilliard, Colie's defense attorney, said. "He’s sitting next to his defense attorneys right now. How’s that for a consequence?”

The Commonwealth argued that Cook was never armed, never placed hands on Colie and never posed a threat. They stressed that just because Cook may not seem like a saint or his occupation makes him appear undesirable, that a conviction is warranted.

"We don’t like our personal space invaded, but that does not justify the ability to shoot someone in a public space during an interaction that lasted for only 20 seconds," Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Eden Holmes said.

The jury began deliberating around 11:30 a.m. Thursday. Shortly after 3:30 p.m., the jury came back saying they were divided and couldn’t come to a resolution. The judge instructed them to continue deliberating and later returned with the not-guilty verdict.

WUSA9 caught up with the Cook family following the verdict. When we asked Tanner Cook how he felt about the outcome, he said it is all up to God.

"I really don't care, I mean it is what it is," he said. "It's God's plan at the end of the day."

His mother, Marla Elam, said the family respects the jury and that the Cook family is just thankful Tanner is alive.

"Nothing else matters right now," she said.

Here's the video by NBC Washington, apologies that it's served by Discord

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"self-defense" justifies discharging a firearm, regardless of who, what, when, where, why or how.

This is the problem with American mentality...

No, "self-defense" does not give you a free pass, it only gives you the right to defend yourself against a single specific threat, and only that threat [in more civilized countries, it also requires "with the minimum amount of force necessary"].

You don't get to mow the crowd with an assault rifle set on full auto, or to nuke the whole mall with all bystanders in it, just because of "self-defense" against a single guy.

Soooo... why were only two charges "self-defense"?

Because they were specified as "aggravated", which is kind of like saying "without reason". Self-defense was the reason there, so he wasn't found guilty of the aggravated charges.

The "non-aggravated" one though, needs more justifying than just "I was afraid"... and I think it should stick, because he should have known better than to start shooting in a mall.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

mow the crowd with an assault rifle set on full auto

That's a real jump there friend

nuke the whole mall with all bystanders in it

Now you're just getting out of hand.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine taking obvious hyperbole at face value.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Imagine jumping straight to obvious hyperbole as a means of supporting one's rather absurd position.

Imagine defending such.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The jump was at "regardless".

You can't have even an appearance of civilization if you go "regardless" of everything.

"Everyone's rights end, where everyone else's begin". Don't they teach that in school anymore?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The argument that it's impossible to be liable for putting others in danger if you're defending yourself is just crazy.

If you can understand why it would apply to those exaggerated examples, you can understand why it COULD apply to this situation.

Now, you can argue that they DIDN’T put others in danger by discharging their firearm. But that's a separate argument.