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.

  • SSUPII
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The person who shot did it directly, without actually showing what was he carrying. Just showing the gun would have had a better effect with no injuries and no arrest, and that already is going over the top.

    You are an asshole for defending getting hurt for this. I want to assume you would not be so eager to go against the kid if it was your family member.

    • SaintWacko@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I can’t believe that while being threatened by a large, erratically acting man, he didn’t think to calmly try to defuse the situation/s

      • SSUPII
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are ways to defuse a situation not entirely calmly without firing a gun.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          41
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Like saying stop multiple times and trying to back away? Hey look, he did that and the asshole kept advancing towards him.

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Like the multiple attempts to tell him to stop and back off which were ignored?

          Maybe if more of them got shot these stupid ass “prank” YouTubers will stop harassing people in public

    • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you kidding? Showing the gun to an attacker who is far larger than you is a ridiculous idea. They will just wrestle the gun away. This poor driver got scared out of his wits by a total human trash can who refused to stop when asked. That’s basically rape—of the mind.

      He was attacked. And he defended himself. The YouTuber should be in jail for harassment.

      What world are you living in? Lmfao.

      • SSUPII
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        And in what backwards world are you living where someone had to risk his life for this. The prankster should be punished for harassment, but doesn’t leave the fact that someone SHOT HIM FOR THAT. Nobody should be shot in a situation like this, period.

        • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No body should have put the shooter IN this position.

          Don’t go up to people and play loud noises and shove things in their face and keep going even when asked to stop. The YouTuber started it. They should pull his videos, give him community service, and ban him from producing online content for 10 years.

          The driver, the real victim, works a dangerous job and thought he was being attacked. The YouTuber said himself that the videos are designed to confuse and disorient his victims to see how they will react. Well, he found out the hard way what he’s doing is immoral.

          I’m guessing your main problem is the gun itself. I mean, I’m definitely a proponent of gun laws, but I’m smart enough to see who the started it, and who the real victim is.

          • SSUPII
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I can see that completely too. In fact you nailed my problem and that is with the usage of the gun, nothing else.

            The prankster did absolutely wrong, I never tried to reduce that. But at the same time, was there really no other way to manage the situation? I want to wish there was, but at the same time also cannot know and very likely wasn’t. Still, it won’t remove me from being disappointed that it had to end in injury.

            • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, there is no other way to manage the situation. You cannot ask a victim to pause step back and kindly ask their attacker to stop. tell me, honestly, would you ask a female rape victim to kindly ask their much larger male attacker to stop? Yes, it is the same thing.

              • SSUPII
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                No doubt at that too. But I was aiming at a security person being nearby, or the food shop this happened nearby. This possible being unreliable if another thing.

                If there was really no other choice as i am being made very clear, I of course cannot say anything and would agree.

                Also in the example you just did I can say the same, cannot say anything and won’t if no other safe option was available.

                • RedKrieg@lemmy.redkrieg.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The “prankster” was kicked out by security the day before and was actively avoiding areas with security on the day of the event. It’s unreasonable to expect someone being attacked not to defend themselves. It’s victim blaming to even imply the shooter did anything wrong here.

                  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    11
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You sound like a bootlicker.

                    The right to use self defense doesn’t mean you get to just jump to lethal force.

                    The dude did nothing wrong? Why was he arrested and on trial for criminal attempt* homicide and gun use charges*? Seems at least the prosecution and I disagree with you.

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody was risking their life, the “prankster” was threatening someone in public. I normally am entirely anti-gun, but this was a completely logical use of force to stop someone who you believe is attacking you.

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Subjective belief isn’t justification. There were zero verbal or physical threats and plenty of room to just walk the fuck away.

            Lethal force is only moral or legal when there is an imminent threat to your life that is subjectively and objectively reasonable.

            E: ITT, fragile bitches downvote true statements of law.

            • BURN@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              There was absolutely threats. Coming at someone, shoving a phone in their face and aggressively speaking in an unfamiliar language absolutely is a threat.

              • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not a threat to your fragility, a threat to your life. An imminent one. Here’s a primer written for I don’t know like thrid graders or something that goes into whether the common law recognizes a reasonable apprehension of immiment harm.

                https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-assault.html

                The victim must have a reasonable apprehension of imminent injury or offensive contact. This element is established if the act would produce apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. Apprehension is not the same as fear. Apprehension means awareness that an injury or offensive contact is imminent.

                Whether an act would create apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person varies depending upon the circumstances. For example, it may take less to create apprehension in the mind of a child than an adult. Moreover, if a victim is unaware of the threat of harm, no assault has occurred. For example, an assailant who points a gun at a sleeping person most likely has not committed an assault. Finally, the threat must be imminent, meaning impending or about to occur. Threatening to kill someone at a later date would not constitute an assault.

                If you aren’t a victim of common law assault, you have no valid, legal justification to use ANY force in self defense. The dude’s conduct was offensive and aggressive, no doubt.

                But what fact gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of serious, imminent threat to life? The dude was unarmed.

                You say phone, approaching, foreign language. Sounds like you want to be able to shoot foreigners who walk up to you. How do you know the person isn’t asking for help?

                • RedKrieg@lemmy.redkrieg.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Your very own quote applies here, the guy kept approaching a fleeing individual, that’s a “reasonable apprehension of imminent injury or offensive contact”. Someone much bigger than you running you down is not “safe”.

                • BURN@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In America where everyone is possibly armed there would absolutely be a threat of imminent harm. Delivery drivers are more likely to be shot than cops. It’s not that hard to make the connection that he was fearing for his life

                  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    14
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No the threat has to be imminent, not imaginary. The person did not have a gun. That a person might be a threat to you isn’t an imminent threat. Otherwise, you could just shoot anyone you want as long as they were walking toward you.

    • teft@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just showing the gun is called brandishing and is illegal. You don’t announce you have a weapon before you shoot someone because you could get shot if you do.

      You are an asshole defending an asshole.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just showing the gun is legally perilous. It’s a felony called brandishing and diminishes a self defense case. According to the laws and court rulings you are supposed to to keep it holstered until you need it.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s legal to brandish your weapon in self-defense.

        If it’s legal to shoot someone in a certain self-defense situation, it would also be considered legal to brandish a firearm instead.