The Man Who Shot YouTube Prankster, Tanner Cook, is Found Not Guilty by Virginia Jury

This article was written with the help of A.I. software.*

A jury in Leesburg, Virginia, finds Alan Colie, a deliver driver who shot a YouTube prankster, Tanner Cook, earlier this year not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding.

Tanner Cook is shot in Virginia mallPhoto bythe author (licensed under CC BY 2.0)

Key Takeaways:

• Alan Colie has been acquitted by a Virginia jury of shooting YouTube prankster Tanner Cook.
• The jury reached a split verdict on two lesser firearms counts.
• Cook approached Colie while playing a nonsensical recording on his cellphone.
• Colie claimed self-defense, stating that he felt threatened by Cook's behavior.
• Cook intends to continue creating YouTube prank videos.

The Shooting Incident and Trial Details

The shooting occurred in a mall food court when Alan Colie, 31, a delivery driver, shot Tanner Cook, 21, a popular YouTube prankster, in the chest. This incident took place earlier this year and garnered significant attention due to Cook's online presence. As the owner of the Classified Goons YouTube channel, Cook is known for his prank videos that have lead to his online following.

In the video below, Cook can be see pranking Colie in an "aggressive manner". After asking Cook to "stop" three times before unloading 1 shot into Cook's chest.

The trial, which recently concluded, centered around the circumstances leading up to the shooting and whether Colie's action can be deemed as self-defense. According to witnesses, Cook approached Colie in the food court while playing a nonsensical recording on his cellphone. It was during this encounter that Colie felt threatened and fired a shot at Cook.

The jury deliberated over the case and ultimately found Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding. However, their verdict was split on two lesser firearms counts, convicting Colie on one and acquitting him on the other. This mixed outcome reflects the complexity of the situation and the varying perspectives on self-defense.

Split Jury Verdict and Lesser Firearms Counts

The Virginia jury reached a split verdict on two lesser firearms counts, convicting Alan Colie on one count and acquitting him on the other. While Colie has been found guilty of one count, he has been cleared of the other charge.

This split verdict showcases the nuances and challenges faced by the jury in assessing the evidence and determining Colie's culpability. It demonstrates that the jury carefully considered the evidence presented during the trial and deliberated on each count individually.

Speaking to a WUSA9's reporter, Cook's mom had this to say:

"At the end of the day, you know we respect what the jury says, and my family and I are just grateful and thankful that I have my son here and nothing else matters right now — and that's it."

Self-Defense Claim and Tanner Cook's Response

Alan Colie claimed self-defense, stating that he felt threatened by Tanner Cook's behavior before shooting him. The shooting incident took place in a mall food court earlier this year when Cook approached Colie while playing a nonsensical recording on his cellphone.

The trial resulted in a mixed outcome, with the jury being split on two lesser firearms counts. Colie was convicted on one count and acquitted on the other, ultimately being found not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding. Despite the trial's outcome, Tanner Cook has expressed his plans to continue making YouTube prank videos:

"“I was playing a prank and a simple practical joke, and this guy didn’t take it very well... This incident won't deter me from doing what I love."

While Alan Colie's self-defense claim played a significant role in the trial, the jury's decision ultimately cleared him of the most serious charges against him.

Conclusion

The Virginia jury's not guilty verdict in the case of Tanner Cook being shot by Alan Colie has brought the high-profile trial to a close, leaving open questions about the boundaries of self-defense and the future of YouTube pranksters.

It has sparked discussions about the boundaries of self-defense and the responsibilities of YouTube pranksters when creating content that may provoke others. It raises important questions about the impact of online pranks and the potential consequences they can have in real-life situations.

Hey, I'm Hudson! I write about social media, marketing, and modern entrepreneurship. Hit follow for more stories like this one.