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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      499 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -349 months ago

        The latter implies being a proponent. Let’s not move goal posts because we think we’re the “good guy”. Hint: you’re not.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -449 months ago

        “Violence is abhorrent, except when it’s against people I don’t like”, got it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -27
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            • mihnt
              link
              fedilink
              239 months ago

              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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          89 months ago

          Correction, when it’s against others willing to commit violence, it’s often the only answer.

          Example: Neville Chamberlain, and Winston Churchill

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        -509 months ago

        Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.

        We used to call that doublethink. Now we call it the right-wing.

          • Neato
            link
            fedilink
            -209 months ago

            This doesn’t actually say anything. You just don’t like what was said.

            • mihnt
              link
              fedilink
              149 months ago

              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.

              • Neato
                link
                fedilink
                -129 months ago

                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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          89 months ago

          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.

          • Neato
            link
            fedilink
            -109 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      99 months ago

      Nah. You can be anti-violence, pro-violence, or understand that violence is acceptable only as a means to achieving a desired result, oftentimes as a last resort.

      Both the first and third options are not proponents of violence, but the third understands it is a necessity to achieve their goals at times. This is literally heavily discussed now as fascists try to paint anti-fascists as the violent ones when anti-fascists merely understand violence as the means to a goal in this case and not their normal path to a goal.

      • Lightor
        link
        fedilink
        English
        159 months ago

        Yeah, we live in a scary country. It’s not unfounded.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          109 months ago

          Whenever I’m in America I have to remind myself that it’s possible that people around me have guns in public. Scary country indeed.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 months ago

            What’s scary is you thinking people in whatever your country is don’t have them! There’s not a country on the planet where criminals that want guns don’t have them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -109 months ago

          I find it really interesting how quick Americans are to shoot. Like any minor inconvenience and you all justify shooting and killing someone. I understand self-defense, but shooting someone for something like this I find it so ridiculous. Especially when seeing comments in other news like the guy who killed a black guy for knocking on his door, or the guy who shot teenagers who were at the wrong house, then it’s all “we have such a gun problem” but here it’s a circlejerk of “he was coming at him WITH A PHONE and was TALLER THAN HIM, what was he supposed to do, NOT SHOOT HIM??”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            29 months ago

            Like any minor inconvenience and you all justify shooting and killing someone

            That’s not even remotely how it is here, only how it is on the severely twisted cherry picked news you watch. The US is a very safe country. Don’t be stupid enough to believe everything you hear and blindly listen to politically influenced news sources. If it were really like that none of us would live or raise our children here.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              29 months ago

              I’m not taking about the news, I’m talking about the comments. the guy above said that America is a scary county. I’m talking about how when something like this happens ppl justify shooting instead of less deadly use of self defense.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                29 months ago

                Less than lethal force is used all the time, but nobody talks about that. Why do I care about comments from people that don’t live here, have zero experience of what this country is actually like, or their baseless opinion that it’s “Scary” here?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  good points, it’s really weird as nonamerican seeing so many comments and upvotes from people justifying shooting someone just because they felt a bit threatened. Comments saying that less deadly use of force are met with downvotes.

                  And I’m not sure why you’re coming at me for, I very clearly wrote that comments in this post are really pro use of deadly self defense, and how they try to justify it

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -29 months ago

                    good points, it’s really weird as nonamerican seeing so many comments and upvotes from people justifying shooting someone just because they felt a bit threatened. Comments saying that less deadly use of force are met with downvotes.

                    Because it’s not in context, it never is. But tell ya what, since you (seem) to not be the standard troll that is the majority here, I’ll put it in context.

                    We have the right to use lethal force to defend ourselves when necessary if we “fear grave injury or death”. Feeling a “bit threatened” isn’t enough. In this case, that guy absolutely had that right. If a 5’2" 150lb guy was doing that to me, that’s a 5"10 220lb guy, I wouldn’t really have that excuse in most cases. But it totally depends on the context. The guy verbally yelled STOP, which is what any police officer or lawyer will tell you, you must make it clear they’ve been instructed to stop, he continued after him, that’s very much an attack at that point. People like to pretend that they know it’d all work out fine, until it doesn’t and it’s too late.

                    It’s not about being “pro” deadly self-defense, that’s the political mindset, it’s just about self defense. That moron put himself into this situation, that was incredibly stupid and dangerous, and it didn’t end well for him. Other countries and even our news when left leaning politically would have you think we live on cowboy times with shootouts in the street daily, do you think anybody would want to live here if that’s what it was really like? The overwhelming majority of the country is safe for the residents, tourists, and everybody else.

                    The problem is the major cities with terrible areas in them and gangs most of the time. Even then, selective reporting on that can make it look way different than it is in real life. Same goes with categorizing suicides as gun deaths, instead of gun suicides. A suicidal person is going to wind up dead, gun or not. Again, people have political gain from blaming the tool for the deed rather than the common sense of blaming the person for their actions.

                    The reason people are so pro, is because of the history of terrible things happening to people in states that heavily restrict gun use, and those people being killed probably because of that. Would a gun guarantee them being alive, no. Would it greatly improve that chance, yes. Even if assholes in a home invasion were also armed, I’ll take 50/50 odds over 100/0 any day.

                    Now if you go to a complete warzone shithole like L.A., Chicago, parts of NYC, ya, it’s not good. But show me a country with places people shouldn’t stay away from. Given our size, and that the overwhelming majority of the country is statically very safe, don’t believe what you read.

                    Americans are always going to be quick to get pissed off with this shit, because we’re relentlessly attacked from foreigners with no clue what it’s like here, and our wonderful America hating Americans that hate our constitution and are trying to eradicate it. That one doesn’t stop at guns either.

          • Lightor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 months ago

            Let’s not paint a massive country with a single brush stroke. Not everyone is shooting everyone over getting cut in line.

          • wolfkin
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            @sholomo @Lightor I think you’re wrong but It’s an interesting argument. Why is this shooting seen by many as more reasonable than the guy who show the kid knocking on his door. For my money it’s the justifiable confusion. A kid knocks on your door and your first response is to shoot doesn’t make sense. You had room and barriers to make decisions. In this case the dude was in his face and wouldn’t back off. IMO they’re incomparably different. But yeah guns are a problem in both cases.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              19 months ago

              it’s true that the events are not truly comparable, but this also happened in a food court where there’s people around, not in a dark alley

              • wolfkin
                link
                fedilink
                09 months ago

                @sholomo That’s a perfectly fair point. Now while I do not support how he reacted and it’s one of the many reasons, I don’t think people should be allowed to have guns willy-nilly, I will maintain that. There is a huge difference between something unexpected showing up in your doorstep and a man intensely yelling at you in your personal space. Extremely close doing things you are not able to comprehend who refuses to back away after repeated attempts to step back.

                • wolfkin
                  link
                  fedilink
                  09 months ago

                  @sholomo in my opinion his reaction was correct. It’s his owning a gun that was wrong. The problem is when you have a gun you’re supposed to use it. And I mean that in the prescriptive sense, not a descriptive sense. There’s no point in having a gun and then still resorting to fists. If you’re in danger and you do not know what’s going on, you reach for the strongest weapon you have around you and you use it to defend yourself. Govt should prevent that weapon frm being 2 deadly. Guns r 2 deadly.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    19 months ago

                    oh yeah I agree that the YouTuber was stupid as fuck, the other guy was on his right to defend himself, but yeah a gun is too deadly for the situation