- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
People only see this with the context that this is a youtuber doing a prank.
This man is 6 fucking 5. Imagine a random giant gets in your face, you think you’re about to be robbed or beaten. He advances. You retreat. He advances. You retreat, he advanced. Again, you retreat, he advances, all the while shoving something in your face. How many times do you need to tell someone to disengage and retreat before its okay to consider it a threat?
Just because this guy happened to be a youtuber doing a prank is irrelevant, imo.
Tbf imo while I carry a gun, I also carry mace for shit like this. From the above description it seems normal force was certainly justified but deadly force is questionable, however I withhold personal judgement as I’m not following the case and the details reported could be (often are) wildly innacurate from the facts.
This assumes a level of focus, presence of mind, and training to reliably discriminate between injurious and non-injurious active threats and measure your response with non-lethal force on a gamble that your attacker is non going to be physically violent towards you.
Cops fail at this all the time, it’s not reasonable to treat non-injurious threats as acceptable behavior and demand non-police with zero legal protections handle it better.
If you’re going to walk up to a stranger in the street and threaten them, then proceed to advance when they respond with “please stop! Get away from me!”, you have forfeited any right to benefit of the doubt on their part.
Cops have “qualified” immunity, as citizens we are forced to take the threat level into account, or else we end up in court with what was it again? Two weapons charges and AWDW?
Not saying this dude should be charged, but he is, and now his life hangs in the balance of 12 “peers.” “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6,” I know, but still, if you have enough time to back up and say “gtfo” 3x you can look at his hands real fast and see if something looks pointy, shooty, or text-y, and I’d rather mace him and keep rolling, case is easier to beat.
That’s not enough to respond with deadly force. You are responsible for your actions and should not carry a deadly weapon if you can’t make the distinction. Shouting for help, pushing away, or even a punch in the face are much more appropriate responses.
A reasonable person would not consider a gun an appropriate response to annoying and possibly threatening behavior. Running away for example.
The youtuber fucked around and found out.
When did it become the default to allow harrassment and intinidation just because its being filmed?
The victim was frearing bodily harm and theft, if not other violence.
Justified self defense in response to an assult, imo.
When did shooting someone become the only means of self defense?
When you’re facing someone significantly larger than yourself and that is the only tool you have on you to handle a situation where you are afraid for your physical safety. Yes he should have used a non-lethal option, but he didn’t have one on him.
Whether he should have been carrying one is an entirely different question to whether he was justified in using the gun in the situation he found himself in.
Not like you can ask the crazy giant continuing to escalate their threat to your safety to wait while you pop on home for your tazer.
I know it’s overly reductive, but is your issue with the gun or with this person attempting to defend themselves?
the only tool you have on you to handle a situation
It wasn’t. There was running, hiding, asking security for help… plenty of tools before picking a gunfight.
My issue is with this person jumping from 0 to 100 in order to defend themselves. My more general issue, is with people like this person thinking that’s the proper way to react.
Yeah, how about taking the phone away? Why does it to be violence?
he tried to knock it away.
i will add here, i’m not keen to scuffle with someone who is 6’5" and hope i don’t end up beaten or shot myself. i see a lot of people here advocating a punch, but a lot of us also know that’s a potential fight we would lose.
disclaimer - i am not a gun owner. but i can understand some of the reasons why Colie reacted this way.
Let’s look at this scenario another way: if a 7 foot tall 400 pound dude goes up to a petite teenage girl and keeps smacking her in the face with a black object after she screams for them to stop repeatedly, she pulls out a knife and put it through his neck (because she cannot carry a gun yet), is she in the right?
Purely from a physical standpoint the FBI did extensive research on this subject decades ago in developing their guidelines for use of force, which reflects both in courts and which you also learn if you get trained for concealed carry.
The justification of deadly force is typically broken down as such: ability, opportunity, and intent. The first two are essentially crossed off in a scenario like this, you simply have no way of knowing if the 7 foot tall linebacker looking dude is a total softie or the 5 foot tall 95 pound granny got her black belt in middle age, and therefore have no way of determining right then and there the ability of the person across from yours ability to kill you with their bare hands or whatever object they happen to have within reach, AND ALSO that this can be accomplished faster than you can react, draw, aim, and fire.
Intent is the only reason why this guy is in court. Right now WE know there was no intent to cause grave bodily harm. But at that point in time, would a reasonable person being rather gently but persistently attacked with some object know this?
deleted by creator
Well guess we should just shoot him to avoid overspray huh? Lol, like it or not this is exactly a perfect use case for it, normal force was justified but deadly, we shall see what the court says I guess.
Yes.
Lol well we’ll see. Idk about you but if I can avoid the chance at prison (and have the time/ability to realize it’s his phone, of course), I’m using the mace which I keep for nondeadly threats on the nondeadly threat. DA in my area (and most areas actually) would definitely bring this case to trial, probably wouldn’t if I use normal force but still, if they do, simple assault is better than awdw and two gun charges in my humble opinion.
deleted by creator
What’s depressing is countries where self defense doesn’t exist. Where defending yourself is a crime that gets you locked up.
Depends on location, time of day/night, et cetera. America is big, like whole EU big, there are both extremely safe and extremely dangerous places contained within.
Take away the gun for a minute. Would this guy be on trial if he instead hit him in the head with a blunt object? I’m not a fan of guns, not approving of firing them in public, so on and so forth, but I think this person may have been justified in defending themselves.
Yes, from what is presented here, it sure sounds like self-defense was warranted but the guy needed to try a less lethal weapon. Put them both in jail, plus seize the Ill-gotten gains of the asshole.
I know it’s easy to be brave on the internet, with plenty of time to think about it: I wanted to quip “that’s what I carry elbows for”. I certainly can’t claim to know whether I would react appropriately, but I don’t have to since I don’t carry a lethal weapon. If you do carry, you need to be able to respond appropriately instead of just blasting away at the first confrontation
That’s my point though, I think he may have reacted appropriately. If he carried the gun legally and he was within his right to defend himself I can’t fault him for the outcome. More over, if I’m picking incidents to show irresponsible use of firearms, this wouldn’t be high on my list.
But it’s great to put on a list of reasons for gun control! Most seem to agree that him responding to a perceived threat violently was acceptable, but he shouldn’t have used a gun. But if he’s legally carrying, then it sounds like the biggest threat here was the access to firearms. Maybe access to a pocket sized kill button is harmful to society?
This guy felt threatened. If it’s any of the gun-owners in this thread and they have no context and feel threatened, I’m sure they’d hate having people call for their imprisonment because they thought they were doing the right thing to protect themselves and it turns out they made the wrong call.
I agree with you. This is responsible use of firearms. This is just what responsible gun ownership looks like. It’s a machine who’s only purpose is to kill. The best outcome is trying but failing to kill someone. The most likely outcome is someone is dead. That’s how guns work.
If you’re having the debate about having guns vs not, this is not a great example of either side.
This is the problem with US gun laws; so he’s carrying legally, gets in a situation where self defense is warranted, and does…
- ask the other guy to stop
- back away
cry for helppush the guy awayshove an elbow into guy’s gutknee him into the groinpush fingers into his eyesshove keys into guy’s kidneys- pull a gun and shoot the guy… because, y’know, can never be sure whether the attacker is going to shoot you first or not
I really wouldn’t want to live in a place where the only options for self defense are to either back away, or shoot someone.
What? This was a fucking 6ft 5in giant of an attacker. I suppose I’m happy that you never seem to have taken a sucker punch, or any serious strike to anywhere vital, but that sort of shit is a momentary action for the attacker that can easily leave the victim reeling and unable to react for literal minutes after.
The attacker doesn’t need a gun to permanently injure you, and only needs a moment to strike you when you attempt to do any of the options you crossed out as things that should have been attempted first. Plus it’s a hell of a lot easier to say any of those options you listed than successfully do them (besides crying for help of fucking course), especially when you have no training in self defense, you’re already intensely off balance, confused, scared, and tense because some random stranger is acting confusingly aggresive towards you.
You go to push him away. He elbows you in the face and proceeds to beat the ever loving shit out of you as you flail to block your vital organs, crying for help where you’ll be lucky if anyone responds at all, let alone fast enough to do anything to actually help you before you end up with broken bones and permanent brain damage (it doesn’t take much to do if someone’s going apeshit on your head once you’re already on the ground).
The unfortunate reality is that any threat to your physical safety by someone larger or stronger than yourself is inherently an existential threat to you unless you rely on your attacker not having lethal intent. You’ve been accosted by a complete stranger. You don’t know shit about their intent. You can only hope. This is true regardless of how each party is armed, guns, knives, or only with their fists. If they truly want to kill you and you have no way to equalize their advantage over you, you’re probably just fucked.
You can argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns and should be restricted to non-lethal options, but given the situation and the tools this guy had available, the gun was the only option that would guarantee his safety against unknown intent.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask someone to risk their own life just so they might allow an unknown aggressor with unknown intent the opportunity to live at the potential cost of their own life. The only way to know if you are in lethal danger in this situation is in retrospect. After the altercation is over, and the victim is potentially dead.
The aggressor is the one that chose to initiate the aggression. If the situation is a question of whether the victim ot the aggressor has more of a right to live, and it is a binary choice (as it has every potential to be), I don’t think it’s a hard call.
I wish that it didn’t have to be reduced to a kill or be killed judgement, but humans are far more fucking fragile than any of us like to admit or think about, and again we can only know if the attacker had lethal intent in retrospect.
only needs a moment to strike you
The shooter gave the attacker plenty of moments:
- asked him to back out
- backed away
- asked again
- backed again
- asked again
- backed once more
- pushed the phone out of his face
According to your logic, he could’ve died 7 times that day.
And only then pulled out a gun. 🤦
That’s assinine. If he was so unsure about the threat level, then should have tried to run away and hide from the start; they weren’t out in the desert FFS.
Instead, he acted all sure of his own superiority with his gun, waiting for an excuse to use it. That’s closer to premeditated intent to kill, rather than self defense.
This story sums up America. Stupidity and guns.
Yeah that was my first thought, too. Both sides of this are peak america really.
The pranks in America are lame. Over in Europe you can literally threaten someone with a giant hammer (as a prank of course) and get away with it.
I think there are maybe two times in my life I’ve been pro-second amendment, and watching that video just now is one of them.
That guy, threatening multiple people with what anyone with eyes would see as an extremely open murder threat? Often with a fake body to demonstrate their life actually is actively at stake in this moment? You can shoot that guy.
People who are into these intense pranks probably went extinct in America.
That clown-thing is one of the worst ‘pranks’ I’ve ever seen in my life. Someone could easily get PTSD from that, or someone else could easily assault the clown with lethal force because of the threat implied.
Good pranks are along the lines of the Just for Laughs / Gags series, not these dumbass American vigilante pranks, or that miserable ‘clown’ prank above.
deleted by creator
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I think these dipshits need to get their asses beaten every time they do that shit. Maybe, if more of them got beaten or shot, then they would stop being ass fucks.
I shouldn’t have to be forced to figure out whether someone is a crazy, drug induced murderer, or just some stupid “prankster” every time I go out in public. Rule number 1 in a society is “don’t fuck with strangers”.
“Live and let live” are words I live by yet I see the vast majority of people don’t, and the worst of us get fame and money out of it. Humanity sucks.
This video is a textbook example of someone knowing appropriate force when defending themselves, and knowing when to stop. Unfortunately.
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I am a proponent of violence toward “these dipshits”
I’m not really interested in taking a side here, but if you can’t at least recognize the cognitive dissonance in this statement, there’s nothing anybody can say to you.
Hey, this is skirting pretty close to actually being a proponent of violence. Yeah, we all hate internet pranksters who annoy people for views, but that’s not a crime that deserves a death sentence.
The dumbass didn’t die. Shoving a phone that’s playing some dumbass confusing phrase, 6 inches from someone’s face, who is just trying to do his job, is assault. Most counties allow you to defend yourself if someone is assaulting you. Most states provide worker protections that provide extra penalties for harassing or assaulting employees. But I guess Uber Eats drivers don’t get those protections since they’re technically not employees. Weeee.
You’re right, he didn’t die. But if “more of them got beaten or shot” someone would. There has to be a better way to force asshole pranksters to stop besides shooting them.
Look, I’m not defending this idiot, he makes a living out of being a complete wanker to strangers, and this was a predictable outcome. I just don’t wish him dead for it. Much rather see him taken to court and deprived of his ability to make a living doing this shit.
This has come up a lot for me when talking to Americans about murder via gun. They (in these instances) have asked me things like “so someone breaks into your house and takes your TV, you just let them?” And they seem apoplectic when I say “yes, and I phone the cops.”
There’s a cultural inclination towards shooting people for crime, regardless of severity.
As an American… yeah, we’re kinda fucked up that way. No TV is worth someone’s life.
The difference here is this isn’t someone stealing a TV, and this isn’t someone being shot / almost killed just for a prank. You have the order of operations and perspective wrong. Colie and what he intended literally doesn’t matter.
What matters is this was someone who felt threatened by a 6’5" menace who approached him, engaged him in an aggressive manner, who didn’t stop when asked, and who continued to pursue when backed away from. Result: the threatened person did what they needed to eliminate the threat. If they intended to kill they could have shot again, but didn’t. If they didn’t have a gun they would have been equally justified in beating the shit out of the attacker until they felt safe. How easy that might be for most of the “prank” victims against a 6’5" male is an open question.
Someone stealing my TV isn’t a direct threat, and so no of course I wouldn’t shot them for that. Take the TV and leave. But that’s a false narrative. It isn’t someone stealing my TV. It’s someone who has broken into my house, is in the act of committing a crime, and who I have no idea how they are going to react now that they’ve been caught. They may very well see me as a juicier target. And for that reason I would feel the need to neutralize the threat by whatever means necessary.
For the record, I do NOT own a gun, and I do believe in gun control. So let’s not bring up any gun-fetish/revenge-fantasy retorts. I’m not saying there aren’t people that have those, but right here right now they are a distraction from an honest assessment of what is going on when a person feels legitimately threatened to a “reasonable person” standard. Also, no, someone turning around in my driveway isn’t a reasonable reason to feel threatened either.
You can drop the “not a proponent of violence” charade.
You can think that violence is abhorrent and also understand that it might be the quickest, simplest way to settle a matter. Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.
The latter implies being a proponent. Let’s not move goal posts because we think we’re the “good guy”. Hint: you’re not.
Airtight logic, bud
Pull your head out of your ass
“Violence is abhorrent, except when it’s against people I don’t like”, got it.
That’s not what he said.
That’s actually exactly what was said. I don’t condone violence except when I condone violence based on my definition of when I condone violence.
And you’re all lapping it up. Bravo.
Edit: and for the record my original comment didn’t even criticize the latter part (the condition or when its condoned). What I am very loudly questioning is the opening statement. Violence is being condoned. The OP is a proponent of violence. Just own it. Don’t be pussies.
Here, I won’t be a pussy.
Violence is never the answer, until it is.
Some people don’t know when to stop. What boundaries are. The prankster here found this guy’s boundaries. The victim felt fear, and reacted in his way. Do I get to draw the line in the sand where violence is the right answer? No. Judges, Juries, and lawmakers do.
Do I feel personally that this gentleman defended himself correctly? It’s a thin line, but yes. As I said in another comment the guy probably ended up in high crime areas on a regular basis and a gun might have been necessary for those situations. So that’s the defense he had on him. It’s not like we all carry a selection of weapons and deterrents that we can choose from depending on where we are at any given time. We carry what works for the worst situation we encounter.
As a delivery driver myself I sympathize because I have a feeling this wasn’t this guys first bad interaction with another individual. If he continues driving, it most certainly won’t be his last.
Try the second paragraph again
Correction, when it’s against others willing to commit violence, it’s often the only answer.
Example: Neville Chamberlain, and Winston Churchill
Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.
We used to call that doublethink. Now we call it the right-wing.
No, it’s called nuance lol
Dogmatic much?
This doesn’t actually say anything. You just don’t like what was said.
No, we all think you’re dumb for dragging idiotic politics into this.
Some of us think with a rational mind and know it’s not all black and white out there.
Speaking in absolutes in this world is the worst thing you can do.
Speaking in absolutes in this world is the worst thing you can do.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard all day. Congrats. I don’t even have to point out how ironic it is for calling me dumb and then saying this. Bravo.
You may call it right wing, the rest of the world calls it intelligence.
If you cannot view an issue from multiple perspectives, then I’d start worrying less about right vs left and start reading more.
The original post was proposing a hypocritical view. I.e. saying violence as bad while also endorsing it.
Doublethink is hypocrisy. And as long as you acknowledge that, then fine. Whatever. Sometimes it’s necessary to be a hypocrite. But if you’re always a hypocrite, you’re probably right-wing. Which was my point.
Holding contradictory views is not intelligence. It’s a learned skill to discard the cognitive dissonance inherent in hypocrisy.
Violence is not preferable, but it’s the appropriate response at times.
In this case, it’s very understandable the guy reacted the way he did. Not preferable, but understandable. He was being harassed, and had stated that the person needed to stop. They didn’t. They actively pursued him. He also was approached from behind by someone else involved. He made an accurate non-lethal shot with a lethal weapon. Good on him. Maybe now he’ll carry some pepper spray, too, so he has more options.
Nah. You can be anti-violence, pro-violence, or understand that violence is acceptable only as a means to achieving a desired result, oftentimes as a last resort.
Both the first and third options are not proponents of violence, but the third understands it is a necessity to achieve their goals at times. This is literally heavily discussed now as fascists try to paint anti-fascists as the violent ones when anti-fascists merely understand violence as the means to a goal in this case and not their normal path to a goal.
americans are so scared, shoot first and think later
Yeah, we live in a scary country. It’s not unfounded.
Whenever I’m in America I have to remind myself that it’s possible that people around me have guns in public. Scary country indeed.
deleted by creator
I find it really interesting how quick Americans are to shoot. Like any minor inconvenience and you all justify shooting and killing someone. I understand self-defense, but shooting someone for something like this I find it so ridiculous. Especially when seeing comments in other news like the guy who killed a black guy for knocking on his door, or the guy who shot teenagers who were at the wrong house, then it’s all “we have such a gun problem” but here it’s a circlejerk of “he was coming at him WITH A PHONE and was TALLER THAN HIM, what was he supposed to do, NOT SHOOT HIM??”
deleted by creator
I’m not taking about the news, I’m talking about the comments. the guy above said that America is a scary county. I’m talking about how when something like this happens ppl justify shooting instead of less deadly use of self defense.
deleted by creator
Let’s not paint a massive country with a single brush stroke. Not everyone is shooting everyone over getting cut in line.
@sholomo @Lightor I think you’re wrong but It’s an interesting argument. Why is this shooting seen by many as more reasonable than the guy who show the kid knocking on his door. For my money it’s the justifiable confusion. A kid knocks on your door and your first response is to shoot doesn’t make sense. You had room and barriers to make decisions. In this case the dude was in his face and wouldn’t back off. IMO they’re incomparably different. But yeah guns are a problem in both cases.
it’s true that the events are not truly comparable, but this also happened in a food court where there’s people around, not in a dark alley
@sholomo That’s a perfectly fair point. Now while I do not support how he reacted and it’s one of the many reasons, I don’t think people should be allowed to have guns willy-nilly, I will maintain that. There is a huge difference between something unexpected showing up in your doorstep and a man intensely yelling at you in your personal space. Extremely close doing things you are not able to comprehend who refuses to back away after repeated attempts to step back.
In opening statements, prosecutors urged jurors to set aside the off-putting nature of Cook’s pranks.
That’s bullshit, from the way it’s described, the guy was clearly behaving in a not normal and threatening manner.
DoorDash driver 🥲
How much do you think the poor guy makes? And now he has to pay for a lawyer, lose the job, and probably go to jail. Only so this dipshit can get the right “reaction”.
And the shooting would’ve been completely justified for a cop.
Anyone who wasn’t 6’5 would have gotten their asses beat the first or second time they pulled this shit.
Exactly.
The only reason he got shot is because he was physically imposing enough to skip the normal defensive responses that might have come his way (and/or he specifically (or intentionally) chose victims he knew would be physically threatened by him).
deleted by creator
I don’t think shooting someone disqualifies you as a door dash driver.
Being the subject of a public court case might. I wouldn’t be surprised if they terminate his account just to distance themselves from the proceedings.
“The poor guy” pulled out a gun and shot a stranger on the street. Why is everybody defending him? Do people so vehemently hate prank YouTubers that they would rather just see them executed at this point? This thread is wild.
Delivery rep work is pretty dangerous, same with Uber drivers and other gig workers. Since you are not an employee, companies have no incentive to ensure your safety. You go to unsafe neighborhoods all the time, and risk of getting jumped in always present. And as I said, cops get leeway for far more egregious shooting, so why should this guy be hanged dry?
And I’d invite you to watch a few “prankster” videos on YT. Most of these are spoiled brats who are always trying to up the ante video-over-video. There is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and confuse their victims. So yeah, they had it coming.
deleted by creator
Take your meds
A doordash driver gets cornered by a large 6 foot 5 man who aggressively shoves a phone in his ear repeatedly calling them a dipshit who thinks about their “twinkle”, tries to get away but is followed, explicitly asks the man to leave him alone 3 times but is ignored, and tries to brush the phone away? Yeah that sounds like a situation a reasonable person might fear for their life in, and before anyone goes “well why didn’t they use a less lethal self defense method?”, the prankster is 6 foot 5 and the victim likely only had his fists or his gun for self defense, one of those two is going to get you out of that situation alive
Your honor, we the members of the jury request additional information regarding local harassment and assault laws related to the 6’5" self-described “goon” so that we may recommend charges.
Additionally, we recommend the charges against the defendant be reduced to misdemeanor reckless discharge of a firearm.
This kid learned nothing from being shot. He still thinks it is okay to bully random strangers, and is already planning his next prank. If your friends like pranks and you play pranks on each other that is fine.
If you get in someone’s face and start demanding they stop thinking of your privates, especially after repeated warnings to back up, then you are inciting violence and sometimes it is going to succeed.
He also fails to recognize how intimidating his height can be to people. I’m not surprised the door dash driver reacted the way he did. This kid is a menace.
Yeah I’m around his height and have light footsteps, I startle people at work accidentally all the time. People don’t like being loomed over out of the blue, if you’re 6’5 you should already know this.
He does know it. He uses it on purpose and then feigns ignorance.
Yup. I’d love to see an analysis of his victims. How many 6’5" grown adult men of reasonable physical build does he try this shit on? Maybe a nice histogram of height vs. prank count. I wonder where the data points will end; hmmm?
I’m sure he recognizes it and enjoys the control.
Assume that if you threaten someone, they will in turn assume you are a threat.
It’s sad that this article reads like advertising for a shit head to attract other shit heads (how many times did they call out his show?). He’ll come out of this better off financially.
Removed by mod
Because only success matters.
Because they are just reporting on facts that give context the entire situation.
Oh come on, the news hasn’t actually cared about that since they ditched the broadcast regulations by switching to cable.
Damn, he missed.
He eliminated the threat. That I can agree with. Training says shot center of mass until the threat is gone.
Unlike you and all your upvoters, I’m glad the shit bag is still alive.
I’m glad the real victim didn’t so something stupid (but maybe understandable in a high-enough threat posture) of shooting again; that would have made his defense much more difficult.
One shot was all that was needed. Heck even if he had missed, that would likely have been all that was needed since I assume (a risk I know) fuck bag prankster has at least enough self-preservation brain cells to un-ass from the scene once the loud bangs start to happen.
I’m glad Cook didn’t die for Colie’s sake. Killing somebody is majorly traumatizing even in self defense.
This channel needs to be de monetized
Very much so. YT should demonetize all “prank” channels. It’s just bullying/terrorizing.
https://www.youtube.com/@classifiedgoons/about
For the lazy if people want to report his videos. He literally has shit like “Taking people’s groceries”, “Aggressively X”, “Accusing people of stealing pets”, etc. in the titles,
Almost all of them are against Youtube ToS.
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.
and thats everything thats wrong with society right here.
Him getting shot is just giving him more fame, more money and more excuses to continue doing this shit.
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.
There wasn’t reacting with fear? I guess backing up and saying “stop”, while you continued to shove yourself in his face, was a happy reaction?
On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance.
He gets off on harassing people just trying to do their jobs or get through the day.
stunts, like pretending to vomit on Uber drivers and following unsuspecting customers through department stores
One of the most common ways to become a prank artist is to have some impediment to your empathy. So it’s understandable that he couldn’t tell what the victims reaction was if it wasn’t big enough or obvious enough to bypass his impediment in reading people’s reactions.
It’s an unfortunate skill to lack, but it’s also surprisingly common. Anyone that values money more than what they have to put people through to get that money, usually suffers from the same thing. And I’m sure you can think of alot of people that sound like that.
Past a certain age, it’s unlikely that empathy will develop. I have seen it develop as late as age 15 though, so you’d be surprised who is not beyond hope yet. We can only hope for his sake it’s still possible to develop after 21 too.
I don’t agree that shooting him was the right way to solve that problem, but I do agree there was a problem that needed a solution.
Could just be a psychopath.
That is indeed one of the ways to have an impediment to empathy, generally the strongest one. But even a milder impediment would be enough to lead to the possibility of behaviour like this. In fact a milder impediment combined with being hyposensory and an extrovert could actually make him crave more of a response than he normally gets from social interaction. Having no empathy would likely lead to not caring what response he got, and it does seem he cares, he just wants it to be more.
What a fucking piece of shit. YouTube prank fucks are wasting good air the rest of us need to breathe.
It totally amazes me how stupid this kid is. Scaring people in a country that is known for gun owners shooting people for low-level reasons is not a good survival trait.
Well he got more subscribers after being shot, and is still doing it. He probably thinks it was worth it.
That’s okay. Second time’s the charm.
Well I sure fucking hope so. It’d make the world a little bit better.
If at first you don’t succeed…
This. We live in a crazy timeline right now. People are stressed, angry, afraid, and it just seems to be getting worse. Couple that with a culture that promotes gun ownership so heavily, and it’s a recipe for what we see in this case. “It was just a prank, bro” is no defense, especially when someone has asked you to stop and is backing away from you. He’s engaging in risky behavior by acting like a creep. He wants to make people uncomfortable to illicit a reaction? Well, bub, you got a reaction.
Speaking of survival, that made me remember a Brazilian prankster who liked to scare people in the middle of the night. In one such prank, where he was dressed like a killer clown and basically jump scared people in a dimly lit alley, the 4th victim stepped back and immediately drew a gun, forcing the prankster to get on his knees, receive some slaps to the head and hear all sort of cussin’.
This guy should consider himself lucky. He could easily have ended dead in a ditch…
Yeah, the US is a shithole where you can get shot for minding your own business.
So you think this pramkster was minding his own business?
