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.
Prosecutor: "we urge you to ignore the behavior of Cook so we can throw another person into prison, and bump up our conviction rate, helping our careers. We're unconcerned with justice, only convictions matter."
TlDR: no judge, only convict!
I certainly don't condone what the YouTuber was doing, but I'm curious what alternative action/approach you'd prefer to see from the prosecutor in this context? What would it look like?
They shouldn't ask jurors to ignore the circumstances that created the situation that led to the shooting. All of those details are relevant to the shooter's reaction. They're asking the jurors to ignore relevant and vital information, because that information hurts their chances of getting a conviction.
Right, that's a legal argument. Part of presenting a case is to argue what is the legal issue/crime at hand and what circumstances/information is relevant. It's the defense council's job to make the argument you just made, not the prosecutor's and it's the judge's job to make judgements about what information the jury should consider in making their decision. It's the prosecutor's literal job to make arguments that benefit their side, within their code of conduct and court rules. I don't know if it's a very good or convincing approach by the prosecution, I'm not a lawyer.
Right, which is what I take issue with. What justice can a justice system serve if their primary goal is to convict? If their career advancement and peer standing is based on their ability to get convictions regardless of circumstance? I understand their job, and I understand the need for it, I don't agree with the career culture built upon convictions.
So then you support... shooting mildly annoying people? Just openly and randomly?
My read is more like: "we urge you to ignore the behavior of Cook because while he's an annoying twat, he still didn't deserve to get shot to death in a public space."
He didn't die, and he's already planning his next "prank".