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.

  • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • wulrus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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”

          • discusseded
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • Resolved3874@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.