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

  • theluckyone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thank you for confirming you’re just trolling. My days of not taking you seriously have certain come to a middle.

    • masterspace
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lmao, go ahead and dismiss people who disagree with you as trolling, bubbles are comforting.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. The fact that the victim was assaulted is all that matters, as it legally justifies the self-defense. Whether you like it or not has nothing to do with it.

        • masterspace
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you want to make a legal argument go pass the bar, we’re talking moral and ethics here (you know the thing most people discuss day to day).

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t need to pass the bar to make a legal argument here— a jury ruled the use of force legal in this case, whether you like it or not.

            No matter how much you debate that, the fact remains the fact.

            • masterspace
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lmao, bruh, no one is in here debating legal facts. Learn how to read.

                • masterspace
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You don’t even understand what’s being discussed. If that’s not a problem for you that’s fine but it’s a problem for everyone else when you waste their time with irrelevant points.

                  • gregorum@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    On a post about a man defending himself with legally justified force, I’m pretty sure that I’m not the one with a problem for pointing that out. And I know that it’s not my problem that you don’t like that fact.

                    At least I know better than to speak for everyone else.