YouTube prankster says he had no idea he was scaring man who shot him

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.

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.

So a very large young man, harassed and intimidated another man, shoving something in his face using profanity.  Pursuing him and advancing on him after the smaller man told him to stop repeatedly.

Given that, I’d not vote to convict.

The prankster probably deserved that bullet.  I hope it hurt a lot.  Maybe he won’t do it again.


Spread the love

By J. Kb

22 thoughts on “I hope he gets acquitted”
  1. Obviously the DA in this locality doesn’t believe in the right to self defense. Any rational person would have viewed the “prankster” as a viable threat. Regardless of the verdict this person’s life has been permanently altered, perhaps irreparably. Because no matter the the outcome of a trial the PROCESS IS THE PUNISHMENT.

  2. Washington DC area, anti-second amendment anti-gun leftist jurisdiction, and a white guy with a gun, who shot a prankster threatening personal space with a cell phone. My take……….the leftist are euphoric. On the technical side however, there was never any deadly force being threatened, only mild force without physical contact–disrespecting personal space. I am with the shooter in this case…in spirit, but myself, I’d never shot this guy, not even in Florida and definitely not in Washington DC.

    1. Problem is when you tell someone you don’t know to stop advancing on you THREE times and they continue to advance as you back away, you have ZERO idea of what that person is going to do. Letting them get within arms reach before using deadly force it looks to me like last resort time. Only thing I would do is SECOND warning to stop I would have said stop or I will shoot you. We can arm chair quarterback this to death, we weren’t there… tthe “youtuber” is another example of how fukkin dumb people have become..I hope the jury is smarter than the da..

      1. Curby I do agree this guy went way way too far, absolutely. But when considering using force or deadly force you must know what jurisdiction you’re going to be judged by. What you can do in DC, is totally different from what you can do in my state of Florida but is very similar to my home state of MA.
        The second you chose to bring a gun into play you’ve just incurred upon yourself a greater than zero risk of death and or spending every penny you have to remain free from incarceration, and in DC the risk element that you’ll go to jail for life and be broke are significantly higher.
        It will come down to, proportionality, as in, is a phone being thrust rudely into your face repeatedly by a tall stranger, and after you give several warnings to stop, reasonably be judged as a deadly threat and justify deadly force?
        It’s a hard sale. He should have kicked the guy in the balls and then broke his nose with a right cross. Force on Force proportionality.

        1. I do agree with you even though I don’t always believe proportionality is right. Would be pretty funny to see the shooter win a successful civil suit against the youtuber for ruining his life even if he looses criminally.

          1. Proportionality is a problematic principle, given that a lot of ignorant people believe unarmed attackers are not deadly threats.

            1. That is one reason proportionality is not perfect. In conjunction with your point, it also makes it hard to justify why escalation of force is reasonable or necessary.
              However the flip side is to make sure that things like, guy steps on someone’s toes by accident or on purpose and subsequently gets his head blown off, is not an acceptable response to minor slights and physical altercations. That a reason for the principle.

            2. Yup, and also the element of “Reasonableness” is in play due to the area this occurred. The shooter no doubt had a subjective sense of a real deadly threat, but the culture of DC will challenge that reasoning with their own objective reasoning, which matters far more in a court of law than the shooter’s subjective reasoning.
              Personally, I hope the shooter gets extremely lucky and gets a non-activist prosecutor and judge. They are rare in DC..

    2. In any self-defense situation, we look at the five principles. Was the shooter innocent? Yes, they had done nothing. Imminence? Yes, the perceived threat was right in front of him. Proportionality? Yes, a large male with an object in his hand is absolutely capable of inflicting grave bodily harm or death. Avoidance? The person attempted to retreat and repeatedly warned the attacker.
      This leaves Reasonableness. Was it a reasonable response? The other day, we were treated to a video of a man walking past another, turning and putting a round in the back of the victim’s head. This is not my rural town, this is Washington, D.C., a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, is hard to find. And then we look at the actual criminals and not the political class.
      I would have been scared. I’m pretty certain this was a good shoot. Same situation as the man that got out of his truck after observing a “prankster” pour a clear fluid from a red gas can onto his truck. That driver got out of his truck with his pistol in hand.
      We can’t assume that every asshole that does something threatening is a prankster.

      1. Awa, on all points agreed, as far as I am concerned, however it’s a leftist jurisdiction, and I simply presented this case in that context. I bet they will judge the threat as simple force, and not deadly force. But as you point out, the reasonableness is both subjective and objective, namely the shooter in this case was believing he was facing a real threat of grave harm or worse, but I believe the prosecution, judge and jury does not agree in their objective leftist view, again only in this case.
        There is a prosecutorial risk in DC. Well above zero. Now in your or my neck of the woods, we would be fine in this case to do as the shooter did.

    3. David, “never any deadly force being threatened”, clearly that’s not correct. No armed force, agreed. But it is established beyond doubt that an unarmed assailant can be deadly. Look up “one punch kill”. Or the numerous cases of people being beaten or kicked to death.
      A very large very intimidating human who keeps advancing on you in spite of repeated verbal commands to stop is, in my book, a probably assailant, and therefore a threat of deadly force.

      1. I think the video will more clearly show the level of danger. If it is as described from the prankster himself, he is pretty clearly acting menacing and his stature is imposing. At least according to his own words, he did not offer any threats and did not initiate any physical contact. The presence of a camera recording the incident does not automatically qualify it as not a crime since we see plenty of people recording the heinous shit they do all the time; lots of random murders come to mind.

  3. With the story of multiple admonitions to stop and the guy continuing to advance, I’d vote Not Guilty as well.
    This is one of those situations that could be a good teaching moment for having that intermediate level of force in between harsh words and a gun. After being warned once to back off, a face full of POM or Sabre Red after the second “Get away from me,” would have likely ended everything right then and there.
    Likely with little or minimal issues from the authorities afterwards.
    Also, “Maybe he won’t do it again.” Wishful thinking. The idiot Youtuber has uploaded 2-3 videos since the he got that stomach piercing.

  4. These “pranksters” are the real problem here.
    They are chasing likes, and “monetizing” their idiocy. You Tube gives them a platform and they think it is a low effort way to make cash. And, it is.
    However, harassing people is not “pranking” it is harassment. Want to see a prank? Watch Trigger Happy TV. No one is harassed, no one is placed into a scary situation. That is the way to prank a stranger. Not pretending to pour gasoline on someone’s truck for YouTube views. There is nothing funny about “pretending” to cause someone harm.
    Regardless of the outcome of this case, the “pranked” person should sue the (so-called) “prankster” for harassment, emotional distress, etc… pile it on until there is no longer any profit in pranking strangers.

    1. Ever seen the “first amendment auditors”?
      They go some place that is “public” but not a traditional public forum and start filming everything. They hold their camera on people, even follow people. When someone asks them not to film them, they snap that the person is in public and can’t expect privacy. Their goal is always to escalate the situation to either violence or the police being called.
      Far from protecting or expanding our rights or government transparency, what they do ends up with more restrictions, and government being locked away even more.
      And YouTube let’s them get away with breaking terms of service.

  5. This was a preliminary hearing. It goes to a grand jury next. The judge himself was too gutless to make the call and end the prosecution. He passed it off to the grand jury. Pontius Pilate smiles.

    Will the prosecution tell the grand jury all the facts on both sides? Facts for the prosecution and for the defense? I know what an honest prosecutor should do. What will this prosecutor do?

    There is still hope sanity prevails.

    1. Awa can correct me if I get this wrong, but it memory serves me right, when a case goes before a Grand Jury, it usually means the prosecutor wants backing-support for the charges….unless the prosecutor has found through discovery that the case will result in being a loser, or be unpopular, in which case the Grand Jury finds there’s a lack of evidence to support the charges, relieving the prosecutor of complete responsibility for the case.
      Grand Juries are never for the defense and always for the prosecutor.

      1. Yes. I agree.

        We know what an honest prosecutor seeking the truth SHOULD do. They should present all the evidence, both evidence of guilt and exculpatory.

        All a majority of the grand jury has to decide is if there is probable cause a crime was committed. If you cannot convince the grand jury of that low bar? How can you get a trial jury to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt? Especially when the defendant has the right to present his defense.

        What the prosecutor WILL do is the question.

  6. A guy who runs a prank channel recently tried to sneak a pistol onto an airplane. No magazine, but it’s clear his intent was to cause a panic, either on the plane or in the airport.

Comments are closed.