LEESBURG, Va. — After two days of testimony, the man who shot a 21-year-old YouTuber inside Dulles Town Center on video in April has been found not guilty on two charges of malicious wounding.

The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding, however, he was found guilty of firing a gun inside the mall. That guilty verdict has been set aside until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.

Colie, a DoorDash driver, was on trial for shooting Tanner Cook, the man behind the YouTube channel “Classified Goons,” at the Dulles Town Center back in April. Colie admitted to shooting Cook when he took the stand Wednesday but claimed it was self-defense.

The case went viral not because there was a shooting inside a mall, but because Cook is known to make prank videos. Cook amassed 55,000 subscribers with an average income of up to $3,000 per month. He said he elicits responses to entertain viewers and called his pranks “comedy content.”

Colie faced three charges, including aggravated malicious wounding, malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling, and use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding. The jury had to weigh different factors including if Colie had malicious intent and had reasonable fear of imminent danger of bodily harm.

Cook was in the courtroom when jurors were shown footage of him getting shot near the stomach – a video that has not yet been made public. Cook’s mother, however, left the courtroom to avoid watching the key piece of evidence in her son’s shooting.

The footage was recorded by one of Cook’s friends, who was helping to record a prank video for Cook’s channel. The video shows Cook holding his phone near Colie’s ear and using Google Translate to play a phrase out loud four times, while Colie backed away.

When he testified, Colie recalled how Cook and his friend approached him from behind and put the phone about 6 inches away from his face. He described feeling confused by the phrase Cook was playing. Colie told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.” He also acknowledged carrying a gun during work as a way to protect himself after seeing reports of other delivery service drivers being robbed.

“Colie walked into the mall to do his job with no intention of interacting with Tanner Cook. None,” Adam Pouilliard, Colie’s defense attorney, said. "He’s sitting next to his defense attorneys right now. How’s that for a consequence?”

The Commonwealth argued that Cook was never armed, never placed hands on Colie and never posed a threat. They stressed that just because Cook may not seem like a saint or his occupation makes him appear undesirable, that a conviction is warranted.

“We don’t like our personal space invaded, but that does not justify the ability to shoot someone in a public space during an interaction that lasted for only 20 seconds,” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Eden Holmes said.

The jury began deliberating around 11:30 a.m. Thursday. Shortly after 3:30 p.m., the jury came back saying they were divided and couldn’t come to a resolution. The judge instructed them to continue deliberating and later returned with the not-guilty verdict.

WUSA9 caught up with the Cook family following the verdict. When we asked Tanner Cook how he felt about the outcome, he said it is all up to God.

“I really don’t care, I mean it is what it is,” he said. “It’s God’s plan at the end of the day.”

His mother, Marla Elam, said the family respects the jury and that the Cook family is just thankful Tanner is alive.

“Nothing else matters right now,” she said.

Here’s the video by NBC Washington, apologies that it’s served by Discord

  • If they’d stopped when he said, “stop” then I’d be a lot more sympathetic

    The prank guy got what he was looking for… but there is a problem: they were not out in the desert, they were inside a mall full of other people. You shouldn’t go “pew-pew” when every shot you miss can hit an innocent bystander.

    Heck, even a shot that you don’t miss, can go all the way through and hit someone totally innocent on the other side.

    • You shouldn’t go “pew-pew” when every shot you miss can hit an innocent bystander.

      Heck, even a shot that you don’t miss, can go all the way through and hit someone totally innocent on the other side.

      You seem like someone who has absolutely no understanding of firearms and ballistics.

      Assuming one follows the rules of firearm safety, including know your target and what is beyond your target, there’s no risk to bystanders. This person was clearly not firing wildly. This was a 9mm from a short barrel - there’s no real danger of over penetration.

      Your fearmongering is ridiculous.

      •  enki   ( @enki@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        99 months ago

        As a lifelong gun owner, you clearly have no understanding of how firearms work and should probably seek out a firearm safety course if you own guns. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation about firearms. The shit that just came out of your mouth would never be said by a responsible gun owner.

        A responsible gun owner always errs on the side of caution. They know that discharging their weapon is an absolute last resort. They also know how loud a 9mm is when fired in an enclosed space, and that even if miraculously in a shopping mall there was no one down range of his shot, it very likely damaged the hearing of nearby bystanders.

        • Ah, the as an [x] / how do you do, fellow kids trope.

          As a lifelong gun owner, you clearly have no understanding of how firearms work and should probably seek out a firearm safety course if you own guns. Please stop spreading dangerous misinformation about firearms. The shit that just came out of your mouth would never be said by a responsible gun owner.

          Given my direct reference to one of the rules of firearm safety - one which agrees with your point of err on the side of caution - I’m interested in how you jump from erring on the side of caution to criticizing a victim for erring on the side of caution in defending themselves.

          Feel free to highlight how anything here - in this individual’s situation or otherwise - is dangerous misinformation. Take all the time you need to support such a position.

          A responsible gun owner always errs on the side of caution. They know that discharging their weapon is an absolute last resort.

          And, as shown by both the video, the arguments in court, and the jury’s ruling, this person acted perfectly in-line with such. And, as highlighted, the individual gave due consideration to the shot taken.

          They also know how loud a 9mm is when fired in an enclosed space, and that even if miraculously in a shopping mall there was no one down range of his shot, it very likely damaged the hearing of nearby bystanders.

          Not likely. Here’s a breakdown on how decibel reduction applies over distance - start from the ~160db of 9mm out of a handgun and work down, then compare to the video.

          You seem to be talking entirely to baseless hypotheticals, to the complete neglect of the situation at hand. This, entirely aside from quibbling about loud noises when one justifiably defends oneself complete with respect to duty to retreat.

      • 9mm can penetrate well into human flesh and beyond, there is a always a risk of that bullet flying out and hitting someone else which I highly doubt this guy took into consideration in the moment.
        Nevertheless, I agree with the charges. Not guilty for defending himself but guilty of firing in an occupied dwelling.

        • 9mm can penetrate well into human flesh and beyond

          So can .22lr - that didn’t mean it’s probable or likely. Even FMJ aren’t likely to over-penetration a center mass hit, and once more, so long as one is observing the rules of firearm safety, even over-penetration is meaningless.

          Given the restraint shown, I have no reason to doubt the person took this into consideration.

            • I’m well aware of the ballistics; that over-penetration depends on incredible assumptions. Try the ballistic dummy tests for a better representation as the factor in the bone. The human body is more than gelatin.

              And no, this is not true for hollow points.

              • I suggest you watch some videos because you’re wrong. Garand thumb has a great video that shows exactly what we’re talking about and all of the 9mm rounds went through the ballistic dummies including through bone and continued past its target.

                • I have to suggest you take your own advice and, once more, highlight the absurdity of your position in baseless “lol no ur wrong”.

                  You’re right that Garand Thumb has great videos. You’re wrong that FMJ universally goes through human-form ballistic dummies. It can, sure. Is guaranteed to? Far from it. You seem to be pointedly ignoring the assumptions necessary for you to make such a ridiculous generalization.

                  Edit: had you mixed up with a troll; removed the irrelevant parts.

                  • Lmao. Ok dude. I can’t take you seriously. I provided a source for my claims and they completely contradict what you’re claiming. You’ve yet to provide any proof for your position. I’m going to assume you’re trolling at this point.

      • A 9mm can over penetrate twelve drywall framed walls.

        “If we assume there were no bystanders at risk, then clearly there were no bystanders at risk!”

        You are saying absurd things. Follow the other commenters advice and seek a firearm safety course.

          • Im pointing out how absurd of a claim it is that small rounds run no risk of over penetration. Feel free to go find sources on no human over penetration, though you’ll find that even .22 pistols have been found to overpenetrate.

            It’s funny how much of a thrashing you’re getting for spreading this misinformation. Hopefully you consider it before the next, or first, time you pick up a gun.

            • Im pointing out how absurd of a claim it is that small rounds run no risk of over penetration.

              Oh, so you’re addressing something other than was actually stated?

              You might want to revisit what I had actually said. Run no risk? Hardly.

              It’s funny how much of a thrashing you’re getting for spreading this misinformation. Hopefully you consider it before the next, or first, time you pick up a gun.

              I’m not sure I’d consider a handful of randos making absurd, baseless claims to be a thrashing - one could call it dogpiling, sure. Thrashing implies some sort of beatdown, though… and all you’ve brought is nonsense. If you’d been able to back up that misinformation nonsense in any way - say, by addressing and refuting points made - you may have had a point.