A man who shot a YouTube prankster who followed him around a shopping centre food court has been found not guilty by a US jury.
Alan Colie, 31, was acquitted of aggravated malicious wounding in the shooting of Tanner Cook, 21, who runs the Classified Goons YouTube channel – which has more than 50,000 subscribers.
However, the jury was split on two lesser firearms charges and decided to convict him on one and acquit him on the other.
…
Jurors watched a video of the shooting which shows the confrontation between Colie and Mr Cook lasting less than 30 seconds.
It shows Mr Cook approaching Colie, a delivery driver, as he picks up a food order and Mr Cook looms over him while holding a phone about six inches from Colie’s face.
The phone plays the phrase “Hey dip****, quit thinking about my twinkle” several times through a Google Translate app.
Colie says “stop” three times and tries to back away from Mr Cook, who continues to advance.
He then tries to knock the phone away from his face before pulling out a gun and shooting Mr Cook in the lower left of his chest.
On the legal side, the jurors have spoken and that is all there is.
But I cannot deny enjoying a bit the fact that the asshole pranker got a nice reminder why we should be nice to others in life. He got shot and a jury pretty much said: “You deserved it.”
Unfortunately, Colie has been in jail for months by now and is still in jail.
The twerp “prankster” said he’ll keep doing it, and his parents are enablers. He was even clowning outside while his mom talked to reporters after the verdict.
It gives me a bit of hope, to see Justice served. Now, I hope he sues the creep for his lawyers fees.
Wouldn’t be at all surprised if Mr. Colie does more time for the ticky tack “discharging a weapon” conviction than most “urban yutes” get for actual murder. It’s quite obvious the Loudon County DA loathes the notion of self defense.
If ya gonna be dumb, ya better be tuff..
heres hopin he gets sued for a giant sum and the shooter wins…
The problem is collecting.
“The problem is collecting.”
Tru dat. But…if one wins a judgement that judgement can follow the other party for life. A court order to seize and auction property to cover the judgement can be financially crippling, especially when it extends to property the loser may have an interest in but not own outright, and a court order garnishing wages – even at very low amounts like $10-$20 /month – can taint any future employment. Employers have a habit of asking about such things.
Now that I’ve seen the video I am going to double-down on my original comment. He should have pulled the gun but never pulled the trigger. I get that he believed he was no physical match for as intimidating guy that size and plus, he had a partner alongside him, two against one.
.
And it goes to demonstrate the fact that juries are unpredictable, a true wildcard. If I was faced with that same exact situation, I would have used non-deadly force, which would have resulted in the guy having a broken leg, wrist/fingers, and nose.
.
If he had issued a loud assertive warning that he was going to pull his gun—but didn’t, I believe the guy would have backed off and if not then maybe, depending on physical movement, I’d put the gun into full view with another warning while backing up strategically.
.
This guy should play the lottery, with the level of luck of having that sympathetic jury. Pigs can fly!!
By “non-deadly force” did you mean fists and similar unarmed combat? But, correctly understood, that IS deadly force.
And as Dan points out, in many places you can only threaten with a gun in circumstances where you’re justified to use it. For example, NH makes that explicit in RSA 627:4(II-a).
gpkoning, from what I understand, not all states would handle physical defensive force the same as deadly force. Breaking a nose, a few fingers and a wrist are not considered deadly force in Florida. Florida also allows a non-threatening display of a gun not necessary in self-defense.
Sure. But if someone came at me with fists swinging, I would consider that a threat of deadly force, and any number of well documented cases would support me in that view.
Yes, in many states you’re correct. But it would depend on disparity of size, weight, experience, history, and verbal statements. And there are many well documented cases where juries came to conclusions which were incorrect. So we are in agreement that each person should learn their state laws, and applicable case history before forming a defensive strategy. And as I have in my strategy, to err on the most conservative side, the least violent side, essentially taking my chances with serious bodily harm or death, instead of prison.
If you are not justified in using a gun you are not generally justified in pulling it and pointing it at someone.
Added to that is the fact that if you don’t use it the bad guy may just take it away from you and use it on you.
No…the victim here had a rational belief that he was in serious physical danger and thus was justified in the
use of deadly force. His biggest problem wasn’t what he did in self defense. It was WHERE he did it. There are
a LOT of Prosecutors who utterly loathe the concept of self defense and will crucify anyone who engages in it…especially if they use a firearm.
Thanks for posting the video, I was unable to find it with some light googling.
.
I’m kinda torn here. On a personal level, and in the fafo area of events, yea you fafo you fafo. This prank shit is egregious and being approached by weird strangers doing incomprehensible things in public is no bueno.
.
Legal wise, after viewing the video, I think the shooter got very lucky. I would not characterize the manner in which the prankster stood in that video as looming over the shooter in any way at any point. Too close for comfort for sure. Hand in his face, sure. Looming over, nah. The pursuit was well, yea it happened. Its not like the prankster ran after the shooter. It the shooting fleeing and the pursuit by the prankster were both slow and distance was made, more than an arms length compared to be right up next to each other at the start. The shooter also turned his back on the prankster, this could have been a tactical mistake or it is indicative of a lower perception of threat. The shooter was somewhere between bladed and reaching behind himself while walking away when he shot. At this point it seems like it was escalated beyond what was reasonable force. I’m going to say again, I think the shooter is very lucky.
.
Possible mitigating or aggravating factors, I can’t tell what the small guy in the plaid says at the beginning when he gestures to the shooter and points his finger fairly close to his face.
.
I’m saying shooter/prankster not because of some bs oh he was just pranking bro he didn’t deserve that. To me it is just much clearer who we are talking about that way instead of using names.
Ok after listening to Andrew Branca’s analysis of this case, all the elements of lawful self-defense were present and therefore it was legal to use deadly force in VA. And I understood that from the start and I concurred. Awa got it right in his response to my first post. My main point has been on the ‘legal risks’, and not whether the elements of S-D were present. Many good lawful shoots have resulted in life in prison.
.
However, my prediction of legal risk was also true, maybe. The jury chose to uphold the gun charge, probably due to a hung jury the felony charges, so they settled by bringing lesser charges in order to come to a finding, which all jury members could live with. But there was, as I have stated, no guarantee that a jury in VA was not going to uphold the prosecutions charges. I guess in this case, I misjudged the people of VA. Perhaps it is my MA mindset influencing my hesitation to use deadly force. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles the gun charges in the sentencing. He should throw them out, but will he?
.
I do also understand that bringing a gun to bear but not shooting it is also the same in some states as actually shooting. In Florida, (ss 790.053) you can legally display your gun openly as long as it’s not in an “angry or threatening manner, not necessary in self-defense.” Lifting one’s shirt enough to display a gun in a holster qualifies.
.
But in this case, if it was me ( I am not the guy in the video, I am close in size to the prankster, and very capable at handling two threats) I would have used physical persuasion which would not have caused death or serious bodily injury—broken nose and wrist is not grave harm. But that is just my situation and clearly was not the shooter’s situation. He clearly believed all he had, as an option was his gun.
.
And if you compare me to the shooter, I appear much more capable and therefore this prankster would not be considered by a jury as a physical threat to me—-weekly I work with guys this size in physical grappling and CQC scenarios. And that personal history would be produced in court I would have to assume. So I would believe jurisdictions would view me differently in the element of proportionality.
.
Anyway, it is good to see that this guy is going to not legally pay a price and instead received a good judgement. He got lucky. Just because he got a favorable ruling, doesn’t mean everyone would.
I still say he should have issued a verbal warning; one, that “I have a gun…back up”, and secondly to “back up or I’ll use it”. Note, I would not recommend doing this in all cases as a default strategy, but in this case, after watching the video, I believe it would have been a much safer strategy legally, in all fifty states and all jurisdictions.
.
Appreciate everyone providing great reasoning and insights. Thank you.