- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
A YouTube prankster who was shot by one his targets told jurors Tuesday he had no inkling he had scared or angered the man who fired on him as the prank was recorded.
Tanner Cook, whose “Classified Goons” channel on YouTube has more than 55,000 subscribers, testified nonchalantly about the shooting at start of the trial for 31-year-old Alan Colie, who’s charged with aggravated malicious wounding and two firearms counts.
The April 2 shooting at the food court in Dulles Town Center, about 45 minutes west of Washington, D.C., set off a panic as shoppers fled what they feared to be a mass shooting.
Jurors also saw video of the shooting, recorded by Cook’s associates. The two interacted for less than 30 seconds. Video shows Cook approaching Colie, a DoorDash driver, as he picked up an order. The 6-foot-5 (1.95-meter-tall) Cook looms over Colie while holding a cellphone about 6 inches (15 centimeters) from Colie’s face. The phone broadcasts the phrase “Hey dips—-, quit thinking about my twinkle” multiple times through a Google Translate app.
On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance. Colie tries to knock the phone away from his face before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest.
Cook, 21, testified Tuesday that he tries to confuse the targets of his pranks for the amusement of his online audience. He said he doesn’t seek to elicit fear or anger, but acknowledged his targets often react that way.
Asked why he didn’t stop the prank despite Colie’s repeated requests, Cook said he “almost did” but not because he sensed fear or anger from Colie. He said Colie simply wasn’t exhibiting the type of reaction Cook was looking for.
“There was no reaction,” Cook said.
In opening statements, prosecutors urged jurors to set aside the off-putting nature of Cook’s pranks.
“It was stupid. It was silly. And you may even think it was offensive,” prosecutor Pamela Jones said. “But that’s all it was — a cellphone in the ear that got Tanner shot.”
Defense attorney Tabatha Blake said her client didn’t have the benefit of knowing he was a prank victim when he was confronted with Cook’s confusing behavior.
She said the prosecution’s account of the incident “diminishes how unsettling they were to Mr. Alan Colie at the time they occurred.”
In the video, before the encounter with Colie, Cook and his friends can be heard workshopping the phrase they want to play on the phone. One of the friends urges that it be “short, weird and awkward.”
Cook’s “Classified Goons” channel is replete with repellent stunts, like pretending to vomit on Uber drivers and following unsuspecting customers through department stores. At a preliminary hearing, sheriff’s deputies testified that they were well aware of Cook and have received calls about previous stunts. Cook acknowledged during cross-examination Tuesday that mall security had tossed him out the day prior to the shooting as he tried to record pranks and that he was trying to avoid security the day he targeted Colie.
Jury selection took an entire day Monday, largely because of publicity the case received in the area. At least one juror said during the selection process that she herself had been a victim of one of Cook’s videos.
Cook said he continues to make the videos and earns $2,000 or $3,000 a month. His subscriber base increased from 39,000 before the shooting to 55,000 after.
You must log in or register to comment.
People only see this with the context that this is a youtuber doing a prank.
This man is 6 fucking 5. Imagine a random giant gets in your face, you think you’re about to be robbed or beaten. He advances. You retreat. He advances. You retreat, he advanced. Again, you retreat, he advances, all the while shoving something in your face. How many times do you need to tell someone to disengage and retreat before its okay to consider it a threat?
Just because this guy happened to be a youtuber doing a prank is irrelevant, imo.
Take away the gun for a minute. Would this guy be on trial if he instead hit him in the head with a blunt object? I’m not a fan of guns, not approving of firing them in public, so on and so forth, but I think this person may have been justified in defending themselves.
Yes, from what is presented here, it sure sounds like self-defense was warranted but the guy needed to try a less lethal weapon. Put them both in jail, plus seize the Ill-gotten gains of the asshole.
I know it’s easy to be brave on the internet, with plenty of time to think about it: I wanted to quip “that’s what I carry elbows for”. I certainly can’t claim to know whether I would react appropriately, but I don’t have to since I don’t carry a lethal weapon. If you do carry, you need to be able to respond appropriately instead of just blasting away at the first confrontation
That’s my point though, I think he may have reacted appropriately. If he carried the gun legally and he was within his right to defend himself I can’t fault him for the outcome. More over, if I’m picking incidents to show irresponsible use of firearms, this wouldn’t be high on my list.
But it’s great to put on a list of reasons for gun control! Most seem to agree that him responding to a perceived threat violently was acceptable, but he shouldn’t have used a gun. But if he’s legally carrying, then it sounds like the biggest threat here was the access to firearms. Maybe access to a pocket sized kill button is harmful to society?
This guy felt threatened. If it’s any of the gun-owners in this thread and they have no context and feel threatened, I’m sure they’d hate having people call for their imprisonment because they thought they were doing the right thing to protect themselves and it turns out they made the wrong call.
I agree with you. This is responsible use of firearms. This is just what responsible gun ownership looks like. It’s a machine who’s only purpose is to kill. The best outcome is trying but failing to kill someone. The most likely outcome is someone is dead. That’s how guns work.
If you’re having the debate about having guns vs not, this is not a great example of either side.
This is the problem with US gun laws; so he’s carrying legally, gets in a situation where self defense is warranted, and does…
- ask the other guy to stop
- back away
cry for helppush the guy awayshove an elbow into guy’s gutknee him into the groinpush fingers into his eyesshove keys into guy’s kidneys- pull a gun and shoot the guy… because, y’know, can never be sure whether the attacker is going to shoot you first or not
I really wouldn’t want to live in a place where the only options for self defense are to either back away, or shoot someone.
What? This was a fucking 6ft 5in giant of an attacker. I suppose I’m happy that you never seem to have taken a sucker punch, or any serious strike to anywhere vital, but that sort of shit is a momentary action for the attacker that can easily leave the victim reeling and unable to react for literal minutes after.
The attacker doesn’t need a gun to permanently injure you, and only needs a moment to strike you when you attempt to do any of the options you crossed out as things that should have been attempted first. Plus it’s a hell of a lot easier to say any of those options you listed than successfully do them (besides crying for help of fucking course), especially when you have no training in self defense, you’re already intensely off balance, confused, scared, and tense because some random stranger is acting confusingly aggresive towards you.
You go to push him away. He elbows you in the face and proceeds to beat the ever loving shit out of you as you flail to block your vital organs, crying for help where you’ll be lucky if anyone responds at all, let alone fast enough to do anything to actually help you before you end up with broken bones and permanent brain damage (it doesn’t take much to do if someone’s going apeshit on your head once you’re already on the ground).
The unfortunate reality is that any threat to your physical safety by someone larger or stronger than yourself is inherently an existential threat to you unless you rely on your attacker not having lethal intent. You’ve been accosted by a complete stranger. You don’t know shit about their intent. You can only hope. This is true regardless of how each party is armed, guns, knives, or only with their fists. If they truly want to kill you and you have no way to equalize their advantage over you, you’re probably just fucked.
You can argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns and should be restricted to non-lethal options, but given the situation and the tools this guy had available, the gun was the only option that would guarantee his safety against unknown intent.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask someone to risk their own life just so they might allow an unknown aggressor with unknown intent the opportunity to live at the potential cost of their own life. The only way to know if you are in lethal danger in this situation is in retrospect. After the altercation is over, and the victim is potentially dead.
The aggressor is the one that chose to initiate the aggression. If the situation is a question of whether the victim ot the aggressor has more of a right to live, and it is a binary choice (as it has every potential to be), I don’t think it’s a hard call.
I wish that it didn’t have to be reduced to a kill or be killed judgement, but humans are far more fucking fragile than any of us like to admit or think about, and again we can only know if the attacker had lethal intent in retrospect.
only needs a moment to strike you
The shooter gave the attacker plenty of moments:
- asked him to back out
- backed away
- asked again
- backed again
- asked again
- backed once more
- pushed the phone out of his face
According to your logic, he could’ve died 7 times that day.
And only then pulled out a gun. 🤦
That’s assinine. If he was so unsure about the threat level, then should have tried to run away and hide from the start; they weren’t out in the desert FFS.
Instead, he acted all sure of his own superiority with his gun, waiting for an excuse to use it. That’s closer to premeditated intent to kill, rather than self defense.
Yeah I figured this would be the outcome
This story sums up America. Stupidity and guns.
Yeah that was my first thought, too. Both sides of this are peak america really.
The pranks in America are lame. Over in Europe you can literally threaten someone with a giant hammer (as a prank of course) and get away with it.
I think there are maybe two times in my life I’ve been pro-second amendment, and watching that video just now is one of them.
That guy, threatening multiple people with what anyone with eyes would see as an extremely open murder threat? Often with a fake body to demonstrate their life actually is actively at stake in this moment? You can shoot that guy.
People who are into these intense pranks probably went extinct in America.
That clown-thing is one of the worst ‘pranks’ I’ve ever seen in my life. Someone could easily get PTSD from that, or someone else could easily assault the clown with lethal force because of the threat implied.
Good pranks are along the lines of the Just for Laughs / Gags series, not these dumbass American vigilante pranks, or that miserable ‘clown’ prank above.
In opening statements, prosecutors urged jurors to set aside the off-putting nature of Cook’s pranks.
That’s bullshit, from the way it’s described, the guy was clearly behaving in a not normal and threatening manner.
I would like to move that all evidence of my client doing anything wrong be struck from the record.
Hey that argument worked to keep Trump in office…
No really it did…
Oy gevalt
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I think these dipshits need to get their asses beaten every time they do that shit. Maybe, if more of them got beaten or shot, then they would stop being ass fucks.
I shouldn’t have to be forced to figure out whether someone is a crazy, drug induced murderer, or just some stupid “prankster” every time I go out in public. Rule number 1 in a society is “don’t fuck with strangers”.
You can drop the “not a proponent of violence” charade.
You can think that violence is abhorrent and also understand that it might be the quickest, simplest way to settle a matter. Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.
The latter implies being a proponent. Let’s not move goal posts because we think we’re the “good guy”. Hint: you’re not.
Pull your head out of your ass
“Violence is abhorrent, except when it’s against people I don’t like”, got it.
Removed by mod
That’s actually exactly what was said. I don’t condone violence except when I condone violence based on my definition of when I condone violence.
And you’re all lapping it up. Bravo.
Edit: and for the record my original comment didn’t even criticize the latter part (the condition or when its condoned). What I am very loudly questioning is the opening statement. Violence is being condoned. The OP is a proponent of violence. Just own it. Don’t be pussies.
Here, I won’t be a pussy.
Violence is never the answer, until it is.
Some people don’t know when to stop. What boundaries are. The prankster here found this guy’s boundaries. The victim felt fear, and reacted in his way. Do I get to draw the line in the sand where violence is the right answer? No. Judges, Juries, and lawmakers do.
Do I feel personally that this gentleman defended himself correctly? It’s a thin line, but yes. As I said in another comment the guy probably ended up in high crime areas on a regular basis and a gun might have been necessary for those situations. So that’s the defense he had on him. It’s not like we all carry a selection of weapons and deterrents that we can choose from depending on where we are at any given time. We carry what works for the worst situation we encounter.
As a delivery driver myself I sympathize because I have a feeling this wasn’t this guys first bad interaction with another individual. If he continues driving, it most certainly won’t be his last.
Removed by mod
Correction, when it’s against others willing to commit violence, it’s often the only answer.
Example: Neville Chamberlain, and Winston Churchill
Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.
We used to call that doublethink. Now we call it the right-wing.
You may call it right wing, the rest of the world calls it intelligence.
If you cannot view an issue from multiple perspectives, then I’d start worrying less about right vs left and start reading more.
The original post was proposing a hypocritical view. I.e. saying violence as bad while also endorsing it.
Doublethink is hypocrisy. And as long as you acknowledge that, then fine. Whatever. Sometimes it’s necessary to be a hypocrite. But if you’re always a hypocrite, you’re probably right-wing. Which was my point.
Holding contradictory views is not intelligence. It’s a learned skill to discard the cognitive dissonance inherent in hypocrisy.
Violence is not preferable, but it’s the appropriate response at times.
In this case, it’s very understandable the guy reacted the way he did. Not preferable, but understandable. He was being harassed, and had stated that the person needed to stop. They didn’t. They actively pursued him. He also was approached from behind by someone else involved. He made an accurate non-lethal shot with a lethal weapon. Good on him. Maybe now he’ll carry some pepper spray, too, so he has more options.
Dogmatic much?
This doesn’t actually say anything. You just don’t like what was said.
No, we all think you’re dumb for dragging idiotic politics into this.
Some of us think with a rational mind and know it’s not all black and white out there.
Speaking in absolutes in this world is the worst thing you can do.
Speaking in absolutes in this world is the worst thing you can do.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard all day. Congrats. I don’t even have to point out how ironic it is for calling me dumb and then saying this. Bravo.
americans are so scared, shoot first and think later
“Live and let live” are words I live by yet I see the vast majority of people don’t, and the worst of us get fame and money out of it. Humanity sucks.
This video is a textbook example of someone knowing appropriate force when defending themselves, and knowing when to stop. Unfortunately.
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I am a proponent of violence toward “these dipshits”
I’m not really interested in taking a side here, but if you can’t at least recognize the cognitive dissonance in this statement, there’s nothing anybody can say to you.
A doordash driver gets cornered by a large 6 foot 5 man who aggressively shoves a phone in his ear repeatedly calling them a dipshit who thinks about their “twinkle”, tries to get away but is followed, explicitly asks the man to leave him alone 3 times but is ignored, and tries to brush the phone away? Yeah that sounds like a situation a reasonable person might fear for their life in, and before anyone goes “well why didn’t they use a less lethal self defense method?”, the prankster is 6 foot 5 and the victim likely only had his fists or his gun for self defense, one of those two is going to get you out of that situation alive
Just based on the facts from what information we have, I fully agree. The story would have to change significantly in order to show anything other than exemplary display of good self-defence principles:
- avoid being in a shady location - check
- when getting in a sticky situation anyway, attempt to flee / defuse (good judgement on what to try first) - check
- if still in the threats phase: back off a bit to clearly demonstrate that you are not the aggressor, support that verbally - check
- If it is clear that the attacker ignores your pleas, do the minimum damage to STOP the attack safely. Based on that principle, he could have pulled & shot a lot sooner, but apparently wanted to be more defensive & nice than most would have been - check
You should not allow a verbally aggressive person to stay at a distance where they could land a punch or use a concealed knife at any time, especially after you backed off already. Try articulating near a cop’s face and see what (rightfully) happens.
I agree that Cook is the asshole here and deserves what he got, from a legal perspective though I have to disagree that shooting Cook was proportionate to the threat.
You describe Cook as the attacker, but there was no expressed threat of violence, only that he was big, and aggravated. Cook didn’t die but easily could have.
The issue with your claim of “no expressed threat of violence” is that you don’t have to express anything to attack someone from the stated distance before the victim can react.
The described actions are already quite aggressive, even with no “violent” expression. I’m honestly not sure you can claim a significant distinction between “aggresive” behavior and behavior that “expresses a threat of violence”. If you’ve never dealt with people who can flip that switch on a dime, I’m happy, but for most people that distinction is not a huge one.
You have someone you don’t know who is larger than you invade your personal space and start acting in an incomprehensible (and vaguely insulting) manner. You ask them to stop and attempt to distance yourself from them repeatedly but they continue. You attempt the least violent method of forcing them to stop but they continue.
This is an utter stranger. You don’t know their mental state, their level of sobriety or lack, if they’re mentally ill. You’ve tried everything that should be neccesary to stop a reasonable person.
At this point you can attempt to run (if you think you can get away from them fast enough, exacerbated by size difference), you can attempt to ignore them (despite all evidence that won’t work as asking them to stop did not)… you don’t know if any of these actions might flip a switch in them and change this from an uncomfortable invasion of space into a violent encounter.
You could call the police but if this turns violent you are potentially dead before they arrive.
Every second this continues is another second of not knowing if large aggressive crazy person is going to suddenly pull a knife or otherwise escalate further.
Or you can “make them” stop. Initiate violence yourself. Absolutely god awful terrible fucking idea, but easy to see how someone might think that’s the only option available to ensure their personal safety.
Real life isn’t DBZ, no one’s shouting “Ultra Shiv Technique!” or “Taste my ultimate sucker punch attack!”.
Is the expectation that everyone should be willing to allow themselves to be gut stabbed before they know for certain that they are in danger so they can then take self defensive action? Or is the issue that people don’t believe “gun” is a valid method of self defense due to the level of damage it so easily inflicts?
While I would hope someone would carry a less than lethal option, like mace or a tazer, I think this whole thing falls under “Fucked around and found out”
Spot on. Real life isn’t like the internet, when you act the aggressor the victim isn’t going to down vote your behavior, they’re going to run away or defend themselves.
In summary, it’s a question of whether Colie’s response was proportionate to Cook’s threat. We’re going to disagree on that, in fact I suspect most American’s will disagree with most non-Americans on this. Ultimately the (American) court will decide.
Or is the issue that people don’t believe “gun” is a valid method of self defense due to the level of damage it so easily inflicts?
A lot of the comments in here make me think these people would be happier if this guy would have pulled a knife and stabbed the prankster vs doing the safer thing for them and just backing away and shooting. If this had happened to a woman I feel like all these comments would be commending her for defending herself but because it’s a male they think he should have invited him to a boxing ring to settle it like gentleman.
Assume that if you threaten someone, they will in turn assume you are a threat.
DoorDash driver 🥲
How much do you think the poor guy makes? And now he has to pay for a lawyer, lose the job, and probably go to jail. Only so this dipshit can get the right “reaction”.
And the shooting would’ve been completely justified for a cop.
Anyone who wasn’t 6’5 would have gotten their asses beat the first or second time they pulled this shit.
Exactly.
The only reason he got shot is because he was physically imposing enough to skip the normal defensive responses that might have come his way (and/or he specifically (or intentionally) chose victims he knew would be physically threatened by him).
“The poor guy” pulled out a gun and shot a stranger on the street. Why is everybody defending him? Do people so vehemently hate prank YouTubers that they would rather just see them executed at this point? This thread is wild.
Delivery rep work is pretty dangerous, same with Uber drivers and other gig workers. Since you are not an employee, companies have no incentive to ensure your safety. You go to unsafe neighborhoods all the time, and risk of getting jumped in always present. And as I said, cops get leeway for far more egregious shooting, so why should this guy be hanged dry?
And I’d invite you to watch a few “prankster” videos on YT. Most of these are spoiled brats who are always trying to up the ante video-over-video. There is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and confuse their victims. So yeah, they had it coming.
Take your meds
Damn, he missed.
He eliminated the threat. That I can agree with. Training says shot center of mass until the threat is gone.
Unlike you and all your upvoters, I’m glad the shit bag is still alive.
I’m glad the real victim didn’t so something stupid (but maybe understandable in a high-enough threat posture) of shooting again; that would have made his defense much more difficult.
One shot was all that was needed. Heck even if he had missed, that would likely have been all that was needed since I assume (a risk I know) fuck bag prankster has at least enough self-preservation brain cells to un-ass from the scene once the loud bangs start to happen.
I’m glad Cook didn’t die for Colie’s sake. Killing somebody is majorly traumatizing even in self defense.
Cook said he continues to make the videos and earns $2,000 or $3,000 a month. His subscriber base increased from 39,000 before the shooting to 55,000 after.
and thats everything thats wrong with society right here.
Him getting shot is just giving him more fame, more money and more excuses to continue doing this shit.
That could be short term. Oftentimes I hear about these people getting more followers, but then I don’t hear about them ever again. There are exceptions to that obviously, but I’m not entirely certain on how many retain that fame.
Subscribers is a big number for YouTubers, but if I’m not mistaken, views for videos is still more important. And I wonder how easy it will be to continue making this kind of content a) after suffering an injury like this which will put him out of commission for a while and likely prevent him from doing particular stunts, and b) with the general hesitancy to approach people that this altercation will hopefully instill. So he could be looking at paying actors (would go poorly) or making his pranks more tame (would go poorly).
Articles shouldn’t be blowing up his channel when covering this case, he makes a living harassing random strangers
I’m not really addressing that facet of the topic, I was addressing whether those subs would be enough to keep his career afloat. But for the record, I’m not going to be subscribing as I also do not appreciate his behavior.
I think it’s about not missing his final prank. 2 month later: idiot got shot again. Darwin wins
Except around here you get two in the chest and one in the head.
It’s sad that this article reads like advertising for a shit head to attract other shit heads (how many times did they call out his show?). He’ll come out of this better off financially.
Removed by mod
Because only success matters.
Because they are just reporting on facts that give context the entire situation.
Nothing would have been lost in he died. Fuckin trash yt streamers.
He’s a dumb ass kid who will one day hopefully grow into an adult that might do something useful.
Pennywise taught me that life is the most precious thing you can lose.
Life lost always matters.
Yes and now someone might lose their freedom because a “prank bro”. So fuck that guys freedom cause this guy is just a kid. Really?
Prank bro is a shit head.
But if America had less guns, then the debate over someone losing their freedom changes drastically.
Meh… guns are stupid, but only because nobody needs a gun to stab a shithead in the eye with their keys.
You get in a position where you need to stab someone in the eyes with keys you take a chance of getting your eyes stabbed with their keys.
Not likely. Someone attacking you while trying to rob or hurt you, will either have prepared much better than that (look out for brass knuckles, baseball bats, knives, guns, etc.) or think they can overpower you with their bare hands. Either case, no keys.
He’s 21. That’s a dumb ass adult, not a dumb ass kid.
Having been 21 once upon a time, yes, he’s a dumb ass kid.
Having also been 21 once, that’s a braindead adult.
deleted by creator
What a fucking piece of shit. YouTube prank fucks are wasting good air the rest of us need to breathe.
This channel needs to be de monetized
Very much so. YT should demonetize all “prank” channels. It’s just bullying/terrorizing.
https://www.youtube.com/@classifiedgoons/about
For the lazy if people want to report his videos. He literally has shit like “Taking people’s groceries”, “Aggressively X”, “Accusing people of stealing pets”, etc. in the titles,
Almost all of them are against Youtube ToS.
“It’s just a prank” needs to end.
I’m reminded of a prank channel I used to watch. He was briefly in jail for a bomb prank and later attacked and beat a woman, seemingly for fun, just a few years ago. These prank channels are nearly universally run by terrible people and there does not seem to be a single thing that will dissuade them from “advancing” their “art.”
