this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
568 points (95.2% liked)

Not The Onion

12269 readers
1458 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 29 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Dude deserved to be punched in the face, not shot. I hate people who do stuff like this and wish they'd stop getting attention. But I can't imagine how you could justify shooting someone over it.

[–] AWittyUsername@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Except he's 6'5 and Collie probably isn't that.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah. It's complex.

It's more or less assault by Cook. I mean ok in hindsight there wasn't that much of a threat to Colie, but if I were queueing somewhere minding my own business and out of nowhere this big guy was getting in my face about his twinkie it would be... "very intense".

By Cook's own admission he was trying to illicit confusion. IDK if that's really an emotion in and of itself, rather a conflict between multiple emotions. In this case those emotions would be fear, anger, embarrassment, whatever.

If Cook were to say "I was behaving in an intimidating way in order to illicit fear, anger, embarrassment, and a conflict between all of those emotions on the part of Colie" it sounds much more like assault.

Yet the fact remains that Colie's reaction of shooting the guy isn't really proportionate to the threat. Certainly in most places which are not America Colie has broken the law and Cook has not... despite that feeling somewhat unjust.

Rather than changing the law to allow people to shoot youtubers on sight (as appealing as that sounds) - I think it might be better for force platforms like youtube et al to have some social responsibility and at least exclude this type of content at least at a policy level.

I know my views on this are probably abnormal in some way but it just seems way inappropriate to me to use the public even as extras in your social media content. Like if I'm at a cafe or something and someone starts making a video even if I'm merely providing some infinitessimal portion of ambiance I just find that grossly inappropriate. I guess I just have to suck it up as part of being "in public" in 2023.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

YouTube has too much money to be expected to be socially responsible. This is America.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

I think it might be better for force platforms like youtube et al to have some social responsibility and at least exclude this type of content at least at a policy level.

I don't know why this hasn't occurred to me and why I haven't seen anyone suggest it before now. This sounds like a great solution to the problem.

[–] elscallr@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't imagine the person who shot him ever wanted to shoot anyone. I feel bad for them.

This dude, though, he FAFO'd.

[–] willowisp_42@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I think it's a classic "Fuck around and find out". I don't like how every idiot can own a gun in the US, but i think it's reasonable for a delivery guy to fear a strange guy putting his smartphone in your face. What if it's a stupid way to mug you? Distract you with the phone and while your attention is on the phone, stab you with the hand you don't see?

[–] kcuf@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The average person is going to be overwhelmed by his size and even likely his energy, they're not going to be able to punch him and do anything other than injure themselves and/or aggravate him.

[–] finkrat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Easy for me to think that he could have just brandished the gun to get the guy to back off. But I'm not in his shoes, I'm just some guy on his phone, I don't envy him having to deal with that scenario and could totally see anyone making the wrong decision there

[–] corm@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Hard disagree, he deserved worse. If you assault someone then expect to find out.