YouTube prankster says he had no idea he was scaring man who shot him
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.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/youtube-prankster-says-he-had-no-idea-he-was-scaring-man-who-shot-him/3431067/Open linkView original on feddit.ch
Hey guys, can we quit with the calls for the deaths of assholes? Lemmy.world's server rules include this:
I've seen that interpreted as including comments that call for someone's death, and I don't want to see this shit get out of hand and draw admin attention.
This particular piece of shit, Tanner Cook, deserves to have his channels shut down, deserves some prison time, and deserves some kind of court order preventing him from pulling stupid "pranks" on anyone ever again. Maybe then he can do something productive with his life, instead of... whatever the fuck it is he's doing right now.
But he can't do that if he's dead.
Being an asshole isn't a capital offense, worthy of summary execution. And the judge in this case apparently agrees.
So just tone it down a little, OK?
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?
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?
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.
America seems fucking depressing if you feel you have to carry multiple weapons on the regular to be safe.
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...
cry for helppush the guy awayshove an elbow into guy's gutknee him into the groinpush fingers into his eyesshove keys into guy's kidneysI 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.
The shooter gave the attacker plenty of moments:
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.
Update: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/youtube-prankster-shot-tanner-cook_n_65172885e4b0a69113b4c9ce
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.
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".
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.
“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.
Here's a TikTok prankster trying his "prank" on a professional UFC fighter and his trainer.
This video is a textbook example of someone knowing appropriate force when defending themselves, and knowing when to stop. Unfortunately.
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.
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.
ICE
Are you going through my post history to try and get one over on me? That's pretty lame
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
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.
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.
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??"
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.
@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.
Let's not paint a massive country with a single brush stroke. Not everyone is shooting everyone over getting cut in line.
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).
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.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
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.
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?
He gets off on harassing people just trying to do their jobs or get through the day.
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.
If you're response to a prank is to pull out a gun and shoot someone, you belong in a psychiatric ward away from people bcz that mentality gets people killed.
It's not like he realized it's a prank and then shot the person...
He had no idea what was going on and a large man was shoving a phone into his face and following him...
No one thinks a shooting is justified for "a prank" but when all a person knows is someone is shoving something in your face and acting aggressive...
It's not hard to imagine they panic.
The "pranker" is literally trying to make a person panic.
And when people panic, sometimes they do dumb shit
How does a functional adult not understand that?
I can totally see how one would be freaked out by a larger man acting erratically. Without knowing it was a prank it sounds rather like he was drugged or something. Depending on what drugs he was he could be dangerous.
When you set your boundaries clearly and the person doesn’t respond to it, and continue harassing you while acting erratically… sounds like self-defense to me.
Isn’t that why the amis walk around with guns anyway?
A gun is the only thing that makes 4'9 Gertrude able to defend herself against a 6'11 Hafthor with malicious intent.
Everyone sucks here.
The prankster is harassing and intimidating people in public to make money. I hope he learned a lesson.
The shooter probably did have good cause to use physical force to defend himself. Had he punched the prankster or used pepper spray, I'd call it 100% justified. He used a gun though, and this harassment didn't justify deadly force.
You cannot know how scared he was when a much larger man kept advancing on him.
I'm not a fan of American gun culture, but in this particular case the prankster got a big cup of fuck-around-and-find-out.
Yeah, the tricky part about the “this didn’t justify lethal force” argument is that it’s impossible to truly justify lethal force unless you wait for them to use lethal force first. You could be getting attacked by an 8’ tall 380 pound giant, but if the attacker is unarmed there will still be someone in the comments going “why not use pepper spray or a taser instead? Getting punched doesn’t justify lethal force.” The goalposts are constantly moving, to the point that you basically need to wait for an attacker to stab/shoot you before you respond.
That’s why the courts don’t use public opinion. The self defense laws are (at least in Stand Your Ground states) written in a way that the victim simply needs to fear for their life, or for the life of another. As long as they can justify that fear to a jury, they’ll be fine. And the jury will constantly be reminded that as long as they believe the shooter feared for their life, the shooter should be allowed to walk.
Agreed, and I do not think that the shooter should have shot the YouTuber, just that the YouTuber (and those like him) are pressing so many buttons that someone is bound to react unexpectedly. Add American gun culture to that and it creates this kind of shit storm.
In the world that has been created in the USA, the shooters reaction was within "reason" and there is a good chance the jurors will agree. That doesn't mean anyone thinks that anyone deserved to be shot necessarily, just that the shooter was in reasonable fear and that the YouTuber merely faced the consequences of his own actions.
Legal, and I think moral justification is not based on how emotionally scared he was. Legal justification for deadly force requires a belief based on evidence and logic that the defender was about to be maimed or killed, or become the victim of a short list of felonies.
His lawyer will likely try to make that case to the jury, but a size disparity and weird behavior without an explicit threat or actual physical harm is going to be a tough sell for deadly force.
I don't know American law, and frankly I don't care because the justice system is shit. But despite that, the jury is urged to put themselves in the shoes of the shooter and use his intent to decide his level of guilt.
Logically and morally, in today's world the shooter is likely justified in his action but the law hasn't got there yet. Not that it will with gun culture the way that it is.
Do I think he should have shot someone? No. Do I still think the YouTuber got what he deserved? Yes. Both of these things can be true at the same time.
Weird behavior? Try "overtly aggressive" behavior
The purpose of the prank was to confuse the victim. While he is confused, he is, by the prankster's intention, stuck in a situation he has never been in before. New situations are hard to assert properly. He was shoved a phone to his face, multiple times, aggressively, not sure why or whats coming next.
You know there are drugs with which its enough to inhale just a few grains of their powder to be affected and controlled? What if the phone was laced with such a drug? What if the words from the phone sounded like a threat?
So many different thoughts run through the head in an intentionally confusing situation that is also aggressive and threatenning. I dont blame the shooter here.
I tried punching an attacker once and ended up with brain damage as a result of losing the fight. Now I carry a weapon and I’m not going back to fists with all the uncertainty their use entails.
Ehhh, it depends.
Alan asked Tanner to stop and retreated several times, but Tanner just kept advancing on him. Alan was just doing his job and was presumably alone, but Tanner was with a group of friends. Tanner was taller than Alan and is a pretty big guy, so it would be reasonable for Alan to feel threatened. Throwing a punch against a bigger guy who’s with his friends wouldn’t be a great move. I watched Tanner’s “I got shot!” video and he was wearing fairly loose clothing; if he were dressed similarly for this prank, it would have been easy for him to conceal a weapon of his own. Even if he didn’t have a weapon, his friends might have had one. So now, even if Alan had pepper spray, it’s not a great option since he could end up getting ganged up on. The text that Tanner’s phone was reading could have been construed as being homophobic (I assume you know what a “twink” is), particularly without the benefit of tone to judge, and even if Alan isn’t gay, he still reasonably could have believed that Tanner thought he was and was targeting him for this. And finally, Tanner’s behavior was probably very suspicious - beyond just what’s described in the article. First of all, he’s trespassing, having been thrown out by security the day prior, and was trying to avoid security. Secondly, in his “I got shot!” video he does this thing where he stares at you slack-jawed. It’s off putting in the video and I’m sure it’s worse in person. It would be reasonable for Alan to believe Tanner was on meth, coke, heroin, etc., and was trying to shake him down for drug money. Note that “twinkie” is - according to UrbanDictionary, at least - slang for a bag of drugs worth a certain amount of money ($20 back in 2005).
On the other hand, Tanner didn’t have a weapon out, nor did his friends; he didn’t touch Alan; and this all happened in a public place.
But if Alan believed that Tanner was on drugs, their being in public doesn’t matter. We know security wasn’t around and drug addicts have a reputation for illogical behavior, so he could have very well feared they might kill him in front of a group of people. And since Alan had reason to believe Tanner or his friends might be carrying, pulling his gun and giving them a chance to respond - possibly pulling their own guns and shooting him - wouldn’t have made sense, either.
Nah there's definitely people saying that.
No, but I am seeing lots of idiots that think everyone that's harassed for a "prank" somehow know it's just a prank...
I think it's an empathy thing, you idiots are putting yourselves in the shoes of the "pranker" and since that means you'd know it's a prank, you think everyone would.
Usually people get passed that line of thinking around 8 or 9 years old, but it seems to be taking lots of people longer recently.
All the shooter knew was a large man ran up, shoved a phone that was blaring confusing curse words directly in his face, and kept doing it when asked to stop and advancing when he tried to back away
That is what he got shot for.
He didn't say "oh. I'm being pranked, I should just cap this idiot".
That's called "theory of mind" and, if I recall correctly, it typically develops around age four.
Who the hell is "you idiots"? I don't condone what Cook did.
If your idea of a prank is to physically intimidate strangers by getting into their personal space and harassing them when they say to stop, then you are an asshole.
If you intimidate strangers for any reason full stop you’re a thug. The guise of “pranks” doesn’t excuse menacing behavior
Sure, but it doesn't warrant pulling out a gun.
Physically intimidating strangers and not stopping when told to seems like the exact situation that should lead to escalating force, and while something like mace would be better overall for society, using the tools that are available is understandable.
Exactly.
And the guy being pranked told the pranker to stop, multiple times.
And the guy being pranked tried to move away while the prankster continued to advance on him.
And the pranker had a mob of people with him.
So his options included getting attacked physically and loosing control over his firearm which could have them been used on him.
that's s really big what if
If your day consists of pranking unsuspecting people, knowingly causing anger and anxiety, then you belong in a psychiatric ward away from people because that mentality gets people killed.
This is exactly what 'Public Disturbance" charge is for.
Why are they not being charged with it?
Ok, but how would you know it was a prank? If you have someone who has suddenly entered into your personal space exhibiting erratic but persistent confrontational behavior, I think there's some justification towards reacting with violence. I dont think most of us are conditioned or trained to react to threatening behavior in the most effective way, like cops and military are. So that means flight, freeze, or fight. You don't have the benefit of knowing it was a prank, you just have a situation rapidly unfolding in front of you. Unfortunately in this situation Colie was armed, and responded with that measure. I think most of people would be ok if the response was just a phsyical fight without a gun, but then again how many people have the capability to "win" that way?
I agree with you but find it funny you included cops in the "conditioned or trained to react to behavior in the most effective way." An American cop would have also shot the prankster and would probably have emptied his whole clip into him as well.
Lol yeah had to throw them in, because I guess essentially they DO get the training. They prob get de-escalation training too, but why bother when as a cop you get a few free oopsies a year.
So throw a punch, or shove him. You seriously think shooting someone is an acceptable response?
That’s actually the last thing you want to do if you’re armed. You want to avoid physical confrontations, because it vastly increases the chances of them being able to take your weapon and use it against you. You want to keep them at a distance whenever possible, which is exactly what the shooter tried to do. They retreated and told the prankster to stop harassing them multiple times. It was only when the prankster followed them that they opened fire, because it became clear that he had no intention of stopping.
Whether or not the shooting is justified is up to a jury. But I just wanted to point out that your “just punch them” response is… Just wrong. Pretty much any concealed carry instructor will tell you that step 1 is to deescalate. Step 2 is to try and get away from the situation. Only after you’ve exhausted those should you consider lethal force. And that’s exactly what the shooter did.
Crazy idea, but you could just not bring a gun into a mall..
Crazy idea, but read the article. He's a delivery driver there to pick up an order. Probably enters high crime areas on the regular and kept it on his person where it would be most needed.
Yep that's what I was thinking, too. He's probably seen and encountered some shit. Some gig work like Uber Eats allows customers to pay in cash so there's a fair chance that he is a natural target for theft through armed robbery or assault. If I had to do this work, I would want to be armed as well. Nobody in their right mind wants to do this kind of shit work though.
So, if the person who is attacking you is much larger, or there are more of them, even if it's a prank, you're going to just throw a punch or shove them? What a privileged position you must be in to think you can simply punch or shove an attacker. Say that to the 100lb woman a 250lb guy is advancing on, she should just shove him, right?
Look, I don't know if you're ignorant or trolling, but if someone is acting like they're going to attack someone and they have justifiable reason to fear for their life, then deadly force is a reasonable response. I'm not going to get the shit beat out of me, or killed, because "hey, it might just be a prank."
Did you read the last sentence of the post you replied to?
The guy is 6'5". I could shove him all I want, he's not going anywhere.
I haven't watched the video, but I bet it's fairly clear if the target of the prank felt threatened or just annoyed.
Either way, crazy gun owners exist. It's one of the many reasons you should not try to prank or annoy strangers for fun and profit. You might get shot, and nobody is going to feel sorry for you.
Sure, not saying what the prankster did was right. But pulling a gun on him is escalation beyond what a reasonable person would do.
*Flailing their little noodle arms at a guy who's much bigger, with his buddies, and acting threatening and unpredictable is beyond what a reasonable person would do. Especially if they have any sort of weapon that would level the field.
Lmao, if you think my 120lb ass wouldn't have seen the writing on the wall. I sure as shit would have gone so far as to pull it and if he didn't stop in light of a gun (not in any way a certainty), we would have assessed our options, wouldn't we? I'm not being handed a choice.
He has almost a foot on me, definitely more strength, way more backup than I do (they are each also individually stronger), relying on bystanders to help is less likely to pan out the more bystanders there are, and various people in this thread have explained very carefully they're not trying to get murked. Yes, that would cross my mind, absolutely.
Hate to say it. Not a fan of guns and a huge number of those who are seem to think it's a toy instead of a killing weapon. And he really shouldn't have had one in a damn mall.
But he did have one, the situation would have come through to me as a very likely bodily threat, and I'm not terribly judgemental about the self-defense in that specific moment. He could have run. They just would have chased him down for the fun of it.
While I wouldn't have been so quick to actually fire, this is also just sorta what happens when you continue to advance on people in a manner that's meant to induce fearful uncertainty. You don't know who has a weapon and the trauma to use it.
Nothing would have been lost in he died. Fuckin trash yt streamers.
"It's just a prank" needs to end.
I’m reminded of a prank channel I used to watch. He was briefly in jail for a bomb prank and later attacked and beat a woman, seemingly for fun, just a few years ago. These prank channels are nearly universally run by terrible people and there does not seem to be a single thing that will dissuade them from “advancing” their “art.”
Wait, has it been illegal to shoot YouTubers this entire time?
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Unfortunately
This was completely inevitable, I've seen one or two videos of 'pranks' and felt its only a matter of time before someone gets assaulted or shot, now the little shit has more viewers
If I was on that jury, I'd nullify the shit out of those charges. Shooting him might have been an overreaction to the situation, but it was the overreaction we needed.
Is it even nullification? I'd just call it legitimate self-defense.
I wouldn't be sad if the cameraman was shot too.
He almost stopped, but didn't because he wasn't getting an entertaining enough reaction.
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".
"It's just a prank bro" taken way too far, huh?
All the times I've seen people say "Try that and you'll get shot someday" finally came true.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Nooooo keep this stupid fucking trash phrase to Reddit, this is the first time I’ve seen this bullshit here
STOP
That phrase has been around longer than the internet even. Has nothing to do with Reddit or Lemmy.
It was in EVERY Reddit thread, it’s a stupid phrase, and this is the first time I’ve seen it here on Lemmy.
Sorry, but this seems like a perfect scenario to use that phrase
I'm sorry to say you will encounter this phrase alot in your life. It's been an incredibly popular phrase for at least 100 years. Not sure what you have against it, but might be worth trying to solve that underlying problem instead of just being mad every time you hear it. You'll be mad alot.
its overused
"alot" is not a word.
Being in the dictionary isn't a requirement for something to be a word. Dictionarys describe languages not regulate them.
Language evolve and new spellings and words enter.
Right, but "alot" is still not a word. "lot" is a noun. Downvote if you must.
My point was that if "alot" has all the other trapping of a word and can be used to successfully convey meaning so it is a word. Spelling for most of written history hasn't been standardized and even today there's lots of words that get 'misspelled' in generally accepted manners like "ok" instead of "okay" or "cant" vs "can't".
If I were to write "Gunnaf hoodie Saddie?", does that make any sense to you? Read it out loud (fast) to most Australians and you'll likely be understood. (spoiler below).
Grammar and spelling conventions make writing understandable and accessible to a broad readership. "Lot" is a noun. What is "alot"? Can it be defined - other than being an incorrect contraction of "a lot"? English evolves, but generally not in a direction where grammatical fundamentals are ignored.
::: spoiler spoiler "Are you going to the football (footy) Saturday?"___ :::
Nah fuck that, I’ll complain every time. I’m old. I’ve only ever heard it parroted by idiots on Reddit, and not until the mid 2010s. It is not a popular phrase, and only idiot redditors use it. I’ve never heard it in real life.
If you've never heard a foreign language spoken in your life does that mean it also originated on reddit?
I’m old too and if you never heard it before Reddit then you probably weren’t online before then.
bitch my GameFAQs account is 20 years old
What really matters is the age of your IRC account.
Goodness, as old as the days I left AOL teen chat.
I concur...it's a fucking bot like post.
Thank you. I’m so happy not to see all these stupid Reddit-isms here (play stupid games, shoes off, broken arms, etc) in every single thread.
+:
I keep seeing YouTube shorts of dudes like this doing not just stupid shit, but DANGEROUS shit. I saw this one of this dude flashing gang signs in gang territory in LA. You DO NOT do that shit. Any time someone would get aggressive with him he’s go “it’s a prank there’s a camera!” One of these days he’s going to say that and it’s going to piss the dude he flashed signs at off even more and he is going to get shot.
I'm always surprised this doesn't happen much more often - especially on shows like 'just for laughs - gags'
Like. Impersonating a police officer. How the fuck aren't these assholes in jail ?
The professional shows are staged. The contestants might not know the exact prank that will be played on them but they usually are aware that something will happen. They sometimes give a rough time frame of "in the next few days" or even an exact time.
Source?
I've heard it discussed in a few interviews as well. The thought process is that the larger networks are not willing to deal with the legal liability of being sued for someones distress by taping.
You can really tell if you pay attention because none of those pranks ever end violently or harshly. Contrast that with MTV's punkd for example.
Yeah, JFL gags has had a few segments where they make it look like a blind person or child fell into a sewer full of water. Somewhat predictably, some reactions were to jump into the water to save them. That situation has legal liability for drowning stamped all over it unless it, like the pranks themselves, aren't what they seem.
Lol Zach from scrubs almost beat up some kid who was a punkd crew member before they did the reveal.
"Asker: When you got punk'd, did you punch that kid for painting on your car? Because I'm pretty good friends with him and when he tells the story he said you were (very reasonably) pissed.
Zach Braff: I punched him in the stomach (as I recall). Who amongst you wouldn't have? They edited it out though. You're not allowed to punch little kids on MTV. Lame."
Always heard Zach Braff was a bit of a prick but i agree with him. You can't relentlessly bother someone to their face, invade their personal space, offer no apology, and be surprised when they feel like they are backed into a corner then lash out like an animal.
I may have reacted differently, but he was probably in the right.
Yeah I heard he's a bit of a prick anyways but I was torn when I first heard that cause I'm like justified anger but at the same time if my kid was one the punched id have beat the shit out of Zach. Detain them, fine, call the police to report it, okay. Arbitrarily lash out at a kid with physical violence over a non life threatening event? Ehhhhhh.........
ULPT: In places where self-defence is banned, you can do literally anything to someone else smaller than you without fear of consequences, well not until the cops arrive... in 10 minutes, or if at all.
Would you list these mythical places?
Would that have been legal?
replace "pistol whipped" with "used whatever means available to neutralize the threat" and the answer would be "yes, legal"
I don't know if there are laws that say striking someone in self-defense with a hunk of metal fashioned into a gun is less allowable than the nearest heavy object. But I could be wrong, maybe there really is a weird law that says you can't legally hit someone with your gun when you could have otherwise legally hit them with something else in self-defense.
"but they had a gun, how threatened could they have felt?" would fail to recognize the scenario when someone is clearly being threatened and then has a choice to pull their weapon and fire or swing. But I also think that's just so much hollywood, pulling out your gun and then pistol whipping someone with it. That would also go against any gun training.
If a situation calls for a gun being pulled, then stepping closer to your threat and offering the possibility of losing control of your weapon are both things that you don't do.
I understand what you mean, but pistol whipping is never the right option. If it's needed then the gun shouldn't be pulled.
haha [shrug] yeah I dunno. it was an interesting diversion I guess. But really the problem is pistol whipping means staying close to the target; it puts you at risk of losing your weapon to your attacker. It is, to put it bluntly, counter to good advice and training. If you pull your weapon you're escalating the situation. You pull it, you better be prepared to use it. And you better put distance between yourself and the target to avoid them grappling and putting you at risk of being shot. You simply do not pull a gun out with the intent to swing it at the threat. It isn't a baseball bat.
If we're talking "ideal" situations here, an argument could be made to pull your weapon while backing away and warning your attacker to stay back. The problem is that requires a LOT of training to stay calm enough to do that. For most people it's just going to be, "fuck fuck fuck fuck BANG fuck fuck fuck fuck" and assuming the threat was reasonable (I'm talking generally now and not debating this situation) then it would be understandable and defensible. Someone turning around in your driveway is NOT "fuck fuck fuck fuck" defensible in my own personal opinion. If someone's THAT scared of the world, they don't need a gun, they need therapy.
[shrug] I guess not. Then again, you can be shot in many parts of the body, recover, and live normally. But a solid crack(s) to the head can fuck you up for life, or just kill you. Same for stabbing. Get suck in the right place, "ouch", get stuck in the wrong place and you bleed out in pretty easy. Read up on the stabs to the abdominal descending aorta. Or don't, you might be more freaked out hahaha
Bottom line, I'll pass on them all thank you very much
He only has 55K subs? He's not even good at being a YouTuber lol
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.
this is so American even the bullet was wearing a star spangled bandana and riding an eagle 🦅
What you gonna do? Shoot me?
Both parties should be prosecuted. One for reckless discharge of a firearm and the other for harassment.
staunch no from me.
IDK if it's a cultural thing, but as a European the thought that it is even remotely okay to take this into your own hands.
if it's this bad, you call the police and they prosecute this behavior from there on.
there is absolutely no space for vigilantism in our society. We are civilized people, not wild barbarians.
You think it's a good idea to call the police?.... In the US?
When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
Can't call the police if you're being beat to death. Can't know if you're about to be beat to death by this complete stranger acting aggressive and erratic unless you give them the chance to beat you to death.
I mean you say you are not a 2A gun nut, but you sound like one, or at least like one of those revenge fantasy online-talking redditors, wtf man.
I hope you are just trolling/ragebaiting or just a kid who doesn't know any better, what the fuck is wrong with you?
According to the article the interaction lasted less than 30 seconds, the guy was clearly taking out his frustration with his life on the prankster cunt and you think it's acceptable to shoot at someone just because they are being an annoying cunt? once again what the fuck, it was in a food court, public place full of innocent people, even if you are psychopathic cunt enough that you think it's acceptable to try to kill someone for being annoying do you ever think about others around you? what if the youtuber hit his arm while shooting and he hits some innocent bystander? what if someone gets trampled in the ensuing panic?
you gonna go and tell some child that their mommy/daddy didn't come home, but worry not, some youtube prankster got stopped?
get a fucking grip and touch some grass. jesus christ.
what does lasting 30sec have to do with it? how long would it have lasted if Colie hadn't pulled a gun? how many more times would have have been threatened? And yes he was being threatened by a 6'5" man continually advancing on him.
Remove the gun from the equation; what if Colie had beaten Cook instead until he felt safe again and put him in the hospital ? Would that be justified since it didn't involve a gun? Same result either way.
you need to forget about the fact that this was a prank or what Cook's intent was. They have no baring. Only what the real victim (Colie) perceived; and Colie felt threatened and had every right to defend himself. The fact that the means he used was a gun is an entirely different topic of conversation. He felt under threat as any reasonable person would in that situation.
once again, are you kid?
30 seconds is relevant as it means it took very little for him to snap.
just because he is bigger and annoying you don't get to shoot him, get a fucking grip, what if he was black and thus made him feel afraid because he was a racist cunt? that's justified shooting in your opinion?
then that would justify self-defense, phone in your face doesn't... jesus christ do you really need this explained to you?
no reasonable person feels threatened when someone plays weird noises from a phone to them in a fucking food court, certainly not enough to justify use of deadly force, not in a fucking food court, if this was a dimly lit alley where he was alone ans in the "bas part of town", sure it's less black ans white, as it described in the article the guy belongs to prison.
Nope, 51yo average sized male with a military career and enough life experience to know it doesn't take very long for things to escalate very quickly. 30 seconds is an ETERNITY if you feel threatened.
He isn't annoying, he's threatening. Big matters because it amplifies the threat. If Cook was 5' 70lb 16yo female that would be an entirely different dynamic. Of course if a 5' 70lb person had their own weapon then we wouldn't be talking about their size we'd be talking about their weapon. In this case being 6'5" is it's own potential weapon in the eyes of someone who feels threatened.
I guess I do need this explained to me. I need it explained to me how you don't understand "phone in your face" is not all that happened. Cook was told to stop, didn't. Cook was retreated from, for THIRTY FEET (from the news video), and continued to approach Colie. How do YOU not get that can be very threatening to someone? Cook's own admission that his goal is to "confuse" people is an admission that Colie could have been confused about what was happening and what Cook's intent was. At that point self-defense = what's needed to eliminate the threat.
Yes any reasonable person can feel threatened by a 6'5" adult male approaching them, being told to stop, not stopping, and continuing to be pursued while trying to back away from the situation.
But here's the good news. You and I clearly disagree about what can reasonably be considered a threat that warrants self-defense to eliminate the threat*. And it doesn't matter. A judge and Jury will get to decide which one of us has the more cogent argument.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html
well it really doesn't matter, you are right, the big distinction is "deadly force" as seen below in the proportional response part of self-defense.
Self-defense law requires the response to match the threat level in question. In other words, a person can only use as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, their claim of self-defense will fail.
The original laws about self-defense required people claiming self-defense first to attempt to avoid violence before using force. This is also known as a "duty to retreat." While most states have removed this rule for instances involving non-deadly force, many states still require the person to attempt to escape the situation before applying deadly force. It's important to know the laws of your local jurisdiction to decide whether this duty is required.
Lucky for him it seems Virginia doesn't have this law.
here is your stupid feels threathened argument:
Sometimes, a person may genuinely fear imminent physical harm that is not objectively reasonable. If that person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the legal situation is "imperfect self-defense."
Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime but can lessen the charges and penalties involved. But not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense as a reason to lessen a sentence.
guess that explains a lot about your takes here, lol.
he said stop 3 times
my bad, that means he is allowed a fucking murder attempt, it's stop 3 times for 1 murder attempt, 6 stops for 3 murder attempts, there is like a bonus.
Yup, you figured out the math. That's what we're all saying.
Wrap it up everyone, we've been outed.
Or maybe, and I know I'm a broken record at this point, but maybe it's one threat for one attempt to eliminate that threat.
You REALLY need to stop focusing on the intent of the fucktard prankster and put yourself in the shoes of the victim threatened with assault.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
ASSAULT
Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.
Nothing is wrong with me. You've just probably never been beaten half to death or shot at unprovoked.
I have.
I hate feeling that sentiment, but having experienced thing things I have in the US, and having lived in other countries and felt safer than ever. I truly wish we didn't have the problems we have today in the US, but we do.
30 seconds doesn't sound like much, but it only takes a few seconds to lose your life. Cops likely aren't going to be there fast enough to save you if something actually goes wrong.
I don't really have much else to say. I have personal experiences to back up my reasoning for self defense.
proceeds to described exactly what's wrong with them...
have you been shot at from a phone? in a public place like a food court?
have you been loomed over by a 6’5” man
I think they would find it hard, given that I am 197 cm tall. I have experienced needless insecurities from regular height guys around me, like a ton, though.
as for your previous comment
you don't have reasoning, you have past trauma causing you a colored view of things.
In a normal country (so not a shithole like the US) the idea that you are justified deadly force in a situation that poses no reasonable threat in a public place like a food court is fucking laughable.
wasnt me
how do you know that he knew
what do you mean reckless
shooting a gun with no good reason in a highly populated place risks otherwise avoidable injury or death of innocent bystanders
Sounds like he had a pretty good reason
harassment isn't a good reason to take somebody's life or the life of a bystander
Assault is
maybe brush up on your definition of assault
Seems like you should. Let me help:
The legal definition of assault is an intentional act that causes another person to fear that they will be physically harmed or offensively touched. The accused person must have intentionally acted in a way to cause that fear. No physical contact or injury has to actually occur.
Sounds like assault to me.
I'm sure the victim would love to be charged with a misdemeanor reckless discharge of a firearm instead of the three felonies he is currently being charged with.
there you go. im not a lawyer just glad he's getting charged
Does anybody know what is the legal option we have when having to put up with an asshole like this one?
This is just harassment since Cook wasn't battering him. Perhaps assault (not battery). Lethal violence wasn't warranted. You'd probably need to call the police. There isn't a good answer for the "I'm not touching you." level of harassment this asshat was exhibiting. You might have been justified for violence less-than-lethal but that's probably going to be iffy in court. Lawsuit after the fact would be feasible as well.
That's all rational, but all he needs is a psychiatrist to say that he was confused enough by the behavior that his rational brain shut down, he only saw aggression, fight or fight kicked in and he defended himself against a perceived threat of unknown severity, which prompted him to go for a defense he knew could protect him, his gun.
The real difference here is that the cops would have aimed center of made and put the kid down permanently... fewer lawsuits that way.
Ah yes call the police while actively being threatened
He wasn't being threatened. But as I said above, non-lethal violence probably would have landed him no charges or a lot less.
Giant dude approaching me doing my job on someone else's property, shoving a phone in my face, I think I'd feel pretty damn threatened.
Yes he was.
His best option would have been to raise the muzzle a bit
Not a US resident, but I'm not sure that the jury has a very difficult decision. The US has a strong pro gun culture and you could predict that victims of pranks would be scared and that the prankster would be shot eventually.
I've never heard of a single credible reason for a person to own a handgunI've only ever heard of one single reason to own a handgun
Go to his channel and report his prank videos
Click on the gear icon > report > harmful or dangerous act
"What're you gonna do, huh? Shoot me?!?"
Welp... life is just awesome isn't it? Full of mystery and adventure. I mean... this is no crime, it's merely the process of life.
He almost died for the lols
I'm sure we can trust what this young man says... :P
Oh look, he's doing a neo-nazi hand sign in the thumbnail. That immediately tells me everything I need to know about that guy.
Prick deserved to be shot, it seems. Too bad it wasn't fatal.
Yeah, the prank was dumb.
But once the guy was irritated, he took out his gun and immediately shot the prankster. Without giving the time to run away scared.
He doesn't seem like a responsible gun owner at all, so should have his guns taken away.
It's amazing how everyone is calling for the death of this guy when they have no idea what happened. You just hear "Youtuber" and "prankster" and have already plugged the electrical chair in. You're all a bunch of old, boomer, whiny, unhinged, histrionic, virtue signaling fucking idiots.
The prank was stupid, but in no way does it warrant being killed. The man just held a phone to his ear and stood near you. Was moving away from him not an option? I assume he had a vehicle since he was doing deliveries. Maybe go to it and leave. Hell, just run away from him if you're really scared.
I guess you didn't read the part in the summary above (no link clicking even needed) where it says the victim (yes Colie is the real victim here)
Does Cook "deserve to be killed"? No, but "deserve" is not the right word here. "Expect" is more like it, and yes he should expect to be at risk of serious bodily harm for approaching a stranger, with unknown intent (to the stranger), and a failure to back off when clearly told to stop and retreated from.
In an ideal world Colie wouldn't have had a gun and Cook would have just been beaten until the perceived threat was eliminated. But regardless of your political/philosophical feelings about gun ownership in the US, it is the current fact of the land and if you Fuck Around you better be prepared to Find Out. Then again, at 6'5" Cook probably feels like he's safe from a beating and I'd be very surprised to find out he's tried these stunts out on grown men of equal size; even this dolt can do that math.
I am glad he's not dead. I hope he has learned his lesson to not be a piece of shit human being too selfish to understand we are not here for his amusement. My hopes are likely to be left unfulfilled.
Probably... and also seems to be asking to get proven wrong. His kidneys and balls are at about half that height, it's hard to believe how many people underestimate those.
Oh god its reddit 2013. Read the article!!! He told him to stop 3 times and moved away but the youtuber kept following him
Moved towards him with a phone and wouldn't stop!? He deserves death!
he didn’t die
You've made the decision to kill someone if you pull the trigger. If they survive, they're very lucky.
Horrible people on both sides of the Isle here if you ask me.
This "pranker" is godawful and should have his channel demonetized.
The shooter is yet another example of "I'm uncomfortable, so I will kill the cause", not that different from "a stranger calls at my door, let me kill the cause"
Where do you live? If you want I can hire a 6'5" goon to get in your face, refuse to back off, and continue perusing you as you repeated tell him to get away and see if you feel safe.
Uh huh, and then I simply try to murder an annoying asshole in a public place. I hate those "prank" assholes as much as the next guy, that doesn't make it okay to just shoot assholes. This kind of behavior is scarily close to "yeah this unknown black guy knocked at my door and I feared for my safety so I shot him in the head"
So that's a yes to the goon?