YouTube Prank Shooting: Man Found Not Guilty, Split Jury Decision on Lesser Charges
In a recent verdict that has garnered significant attention, a US jury has found Alan Colie, aged 31, not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding in the shooting incident involving Tanner Cook, a 21-year-old YouTuber known for his Classified Goons channel boasting over 50,000 subscribers. This incident unfolded at a shopping center food court in Dulles Town Center, located west of Washington DC, on April 2.
However, the jury had differing opinions on two lesser firearms charges brought against Colie. They convicted him on one while acquitting him on the other, creating a mixed result.
The shooting event in April sent shockwaves through the shopping center, causing panic among shoppers who feared it might be another mass shooting. Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, argued during closing statements that Colie felt threatened by Cook, who stands at 6 feet 5 inches tall, and that the entire confrontation was deliberately staged to provoke a reaction and attract viewers to Cook’s YouTube channel.
Pouilliard emphasized, “Mr. Cook is attempting to confuse people to generate content. He isn’t concerned about scaring people; he continues this behavior.”
The jury watched a video of the incident, which depicted the confrontation between Colie and Cook lasting less than 30 seconds. In the video, Cook approached Colie, a delivery driver, while he was picking up a food order. Cook loomed over Colie, holding a phone about six inches from Colie’s face, which played an offensive phrase repeatedly through a Google Translate app.
Colie repeatedly told Cook to “stop” and attempted to back away. However, Cook continued advancing. Colie then resorted to knocking the phone away from his face before drawing a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest without any pause between drawing the weapon and firing.
Colie pleaded not guilty, asserting he had acted in self-defense.
Prosecutor Eden Homes countered this argument, stating that the facts did not support self-defense claims. According to the law, Colie would have to reasonably fear that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm and use no more force than necessary. She pointed out that Cook’s prank, though bizarre, was not threatening. “They were playing a silly phrase on a phone,” she remarked. “How could the defendant reasonably believe he was in fear of imminent bodily harm?”
Adam Pouilliard questioned the consistency of the firearms charge conviction in light of Colie’s acquittal on self-defense grounds. He requested that the judge reconsider this aspect, which will be discussed in an upcoming hearing next month.
The verdict highlights the complexities surrounding self-defense claims in cases where actions are influenced by online pranks and real-life consequences.