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
I think the key here is the fact there were 2 people who approached Colie. That substantially shifts the power balance. Its one thing when its 1 on 1 alone and the other person isn't directly harming you yet, but acting threatening.
When you add a second person who is also engaging in your personal space though, the balance shifts and I think thats what completely justifies a preventative self defence, because when it comes to 2 on 1 you're margin of safety thins dramatically.
To be specific:
If a single person is threatening you, then abruptly shifts to try and attack you, you have a fairly decent window of safety. You can turn and flee, you can push them away, etc etc. You're ability to defend yourself after attacked is still quite reasonable.
If two people are threatening though, those options shrink down a lot. The second person can block off your escape, they can both grab you, etc. Once any of that happens you're ability to defend yourself after attacked is very very unlikely.
So when its 2 on 1, you are a lot more justified to just shoot the person before they actually attack you, because you likely won't get the chance to shoot them anyways after they attack.
In other words, if Cook hadn't brought a friend along I think the outcome would have been very very different.
I think also a big part of why Colie was found not-guilty is that he disengaged, said 3 times "stop" including attempting to swipe away Cook, and only then did he take violent action to end the perceived threat. He fired a single round low into Cook, and then immediately retreated from the scene.
The argument at hand isn't whether or not he was acting in self defence, but whether he used proportional force to justify it as such, and the jury found that it was proportional, likely due to the factors you described.
Even scarier, one of those two approached from behind.
Which radically shifted the balance in his favor when in court. Virginia is a "duty to retreat" state and having the other guy behind him meant he was surrounded.
I believe you have it backwards. Virginia law has "NO duty to retreat".
If I threaten to harm you, you don't gotta try and escape first, you can strike.
You're both wrong about how the duties arise and come up in court as elements of the charge.
The duty on someone privileged to self defend is to use reasonable force, no more than is warranted by the seriousness of the threat and its imminence. Unless the state has a stand your ground statute, evidence showing the defendant could have backed away or otherwise retreated gets admitted and the jury gets instructed that a threat is not considered imminent the facts prove the defendant could have retreated. It's an implied duty.
In this case, the threat was obviously imminent. The question is whether it was sufficient to justify self defense by lethal force. I think not.
A risk of mere bodily harm is insufficient to warrant countervailing deadly force. There are no facts the defendant can point to, in my opinion, to show his life was in danger.
He testifies that he subjectively felt his life was in danger. I don't think it was objectively reasonable. I think the facts give rise only to an inference that he was in for a beating.
Thanks for the sane reply! But your comments seem all over the place given differing laws in different jurisdictions.
Then tried playing the "I'm not touching you" game.
For context, I'm a liberal gun owner who doesn't carry all the time.
At first, I felt the shooter was on very thin ice. Your comment completely shifted my view on the situation. I might well have taken the shot myself, given the 2 on 1, and one coming from behind.
And remember kids! This is why we wait for a court of law to bring out the evidence before forming a solid opinion!
Thanks you so much for changing my mind, and doing so in a sane and logical manner.
Follow up question about power difference. What if the defender is say really small or weak. Say a 5 foot 60 year old woman and 1 6canf half feet tall young man. Would she have a fastee right to self defense?