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

  • gregorum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    The fact is that he was assaulted and was legally justified in his self-defense. Your opinion is irrelevant.

    • @Touching_Grass
      link
      -31 year ago

      Your opinion is irrelevant.

      You’re hiding behind the word assaulted since just being assaulted doesn’t justify anything since clearly sounds is an assault. Should you shoot up a comedy club because the comedian assaults you with a joke. Words are violence now

      • gregorum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        The fact that a man was assaulted by the YouTuber, legally justifies the use of force, which was used in this instance, just because you don’t like that, doesn’t change the fact that it was legally justified. And no matter how much you twist words around or ignore the facts of the case, The facts, again, remain the facts in this case. A person was assaulted and defended themselves with a legally justified use of force.

        Whether you like it or not.

        • @Touching_Grass
          link
          01 year ago

          You are legally justified to fuck a 16 year old in some states. According to your reasoning that’s all that matters.

          I’m telling you it isnt. In both cases its wrong. Legal justification is not enough and isnt a sword to fall on in a country that’s fucked up

          • gregorum
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This isn’t a discussion about sex with minors, but that seems to be on your mind.

            In this case, this man’s use of force was legally justified self-defense in response to assault. Your opinion is irrelevant.

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                You’re attempts to change the subject to sex with minors is a straw man and comparing self defense to sex with minors is a a false equivalence.

                The fact remains, despite your logically fallacious arguments, that the use of force in this case was a legally justified self-defense against assault, whether you like it or not. Your opinion is irrelevant.

                • @Touching_Grass
                  link
                  -21 year ago

                  Its not a false equivalency. You’re saying he’s legally justified as the justification. I’m showing you that isnt enough. If you can’t answer honestly then thats more than enough to conclude your argument is badly formed.

                  Legal force was not justified since the threat was not proportional to the threat

                  • gregorum
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Sex with minors is not the same thing as a person defending themself from assault. That is clearly a false equivalence. And changing the subject from self-defense to sex with minors is clearly a strawman. Don’t blame me because you simply cannot make your point without using logical fallacies, and don’t blame me for pointing out the facts.

                    As someone who is incapable of making an argument without using multiple logical fallacies, you are hardly in a position to accuse anyone else of a badly formed argument.

                    Not to mention that I find it rather curious that you’re suddenly so fixated on sex with minors…