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
No, he shot a very large stranger that came up behind him and started aggressively shoving their phone at his head abs kept following him as he backed away. It’s completely reasonable to feel threatened in that situation.
Not life threatening. Completely reasonable to feel threatened in many safe situations. Which is why walking around armed leads to this negligence and the devaluing of human life to justify it.
You weren’t in the situation, so you have no idea how Cook felt. It’s easy to look back after the fact and say that things should have been done differently.
Luckily, a jury disagrees with you.
How he felt is objective and not as relevant as the facts which are these kids did not actually pose a threat let alone one that was life threatening. A jury in america would think he was not guilty. Because the culture in many place in America does not value life.
No, how he felt is the only thing that’s relevant.
Again, you’re playing Captain Hindsight. Of course he knows now that the moron wasn’t a threat, but when you’re in the situation you don’t get that luxury.
No it isn’t relevant. Judgements are wrong like here. You carry and discharge a firearm in public then the threshold should much higher that a guess
Well, hopefully you don’t ever serve on a jury, because your lack of empathy is concerning.
If I lacked empathy, I would agree shooting an unarmed youngish person acting stupid was justified. But I have empathy and expect anybody carrying a firearm be held to higher expectations than just random guessing
You lack the ability to put yourself in Cooks shoes to try to understand the circumstances that led to the shooting. Or, you’re purposefully ignoring it to push your agenda.
The YouTuber assaulted him, and that is a fact, no matter how much you want to ignore it.
The man had a legally-justified right to defend himself. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.
Speech is violence I suppose then by your definition since all that was done was playing audio oh and looking menacing
Removed by mod
Nothing with what you said is a threat to anyone’s life. Where did it say he’s boxed in. Was he physically restrained or had hands on him in anyway?
There’s no requirement for them to have hands on for it to classify as assault. Battery requires physical contact, not assault. That’s why there’s 2 separate charges.
As a small person and a minority, if someone like this is advancing after being told to back off and had someone coming in from behind I’d be 100% sure I’m about to be the victim of a hate crime. If you wait till they’re hands on you’re likely going to be dead or severely beaten. At which point it is a threat to his life.
Your history of drawing the wrong conclusions is repeating once again.
That’s not all that happened, of course. But you have no problem twisting the story to suit your narrative. The fact is, the victim was assaulted and used a legally justified amount of force in self-defense. Those are the facts, whether you like it, or not, and no amount of your twisting the facts will change that.
Removed by mod