It was jury nullification. They didn’t want him doing time on the big charge so they found him guilty of one of the lesser charge. So they’re saying that what he did was wrong, but not wrong enough to get the punishment he’d have gotten for the big charge.
@@hard2hurt jury nullification has been politicized for a while, cannabis legalization activists were doing a good job pushing out information about it before that movement started finding it's footing.
@@hard2hurt You didn't realize that convicting on the big crime gets big punishment, but convicting on the small crime gets small punishment? I'm assuming you don't actually follow criminal cases involving self defense much, do you? I am a fan of yours generally, but you seem very ignorant on this topic.
The charges of aggravated malicious wounding and malicious discharge of a firearm also require the jury to find that Colie acted with malice. If the jury finds that Colie was responding to a provocation that reasonably arouses fear or anger, then there is no malice under the law.
Two against one, and arguably three against one when you add in the cameraman, continued harassment, being a smaller person... Yeah, it's a sudden escalation, but it's also self defense. Especially considering that it was ONE shot, not mag dumping, and the driver obviously didn't like that he just had to shoot someone.
I'm not shedding any tears over the use of force that happened, but this is definitely a situation where pepper spray was the correct tool for the job. If you carry a gun, this the perfect example of exactly why you also need something intermediate between "leave me alone" and "bang"
Also, just pulling it out and saying "fuck off" once more probably would work. And if not he's already with the gun out so it's just a finger move if they keep trying.
Never brandish a firearm in self defense with in arms reach of the assailant. If you're taking it out at that distance, you better be ready to use it. Because they can just grab it at that point.
This example does not prove you need something intermediate; it proves the opposite. The gun incapacitated his assailant immediately, and the jury ruled in his favor; all pros, no cons. If the jury did not rule in his favor, then maybe this example would support your point.
@@reecewood1918 At least not guilty to the "malicious wounding" charge. There are lesser charges that might be applied though, because pulling the gun without shooting might have been enough in this situation.
What I don't like is the way his parent reacted to his funny faces, she took this as no big deal and laughed. This is a big deal because someone else now has a criminal record caused by her son's actions...does she realize he could be dead right now. I know if I acted that way I would've got my ass kicked by my parent right on national TV. Truly amazing parenting!!!
The fact that getting a bullet in him seems to in no way caused him to reconsider his career of professional physical intimidation is all I need to know that the shooting was justified. It might not have been self defence, but it was justified, at least morally. One day, if he keeps this shit up, this dude is going to end up murdered in a busy intersection during the middle of the day and no one is going to see anything.
@@MaxxRemKing1 He harasses people all the time and overall is just a stain on society as a person. That's the moral grounds, his harassing victim shot him. I wouldn't say its moral if he died, but just getting shot is fine.
I agree with what you said except for the part about it not being self defense. Imo, if 3 strangers, at least one of whom is huge, are harassing you for no apparent reason and refuse to stop, you have good reason to believe they may harm you. But, people are always going to differ on the meaning of the word "reasonable".
@@Papagiorgio153 I only hope that in the jury pool you would explain this position to the judge . Also (and i'm sorry about this) it's "COULDN'T care less."
@@stevena.7022 ☝🤓 Akshuallly i COULD care less. I guess its good for me then that the entire hypothetical scenario you painted was fabricated in your head.
It was at least 1vs 3, had he decided to punch any of the guys, all of them would have had justification to jump him, that shooter could have not only been beat up but could've been guilty of assault also. What they were doing is absolutely stupid and that youtuber feel no guilt about bullying people like that. At least no one died and I hope the bullies and anyone watching this video learned something from that situation.
He's outnumbered, outsized and being leaned over while a man is speaking upon things the shooter does not understand. The shooter gave multiple warnings to leave him alone, he's not being harassed, he's being assaulted. I wouldn't have shot him but I don't fault anyone that would.
@@hard2hurt I mean, maybe that qualifies as assault in his jurisdiction. It doesn’t in mine, it doesn’t in yours, and it doesn’t in the jurisdiction where it happened, but maybe it does somewhere? The trouble with that argument is that if you water down the definition of assault enough that the gunman was being assaulted, then that new definition of Assault-Lite isn’t enough to justify the use of deadly force in self defense. If someone’s a victim of Diet Assault, that’s not enough to put *A Reasonable Person* in fear for their life. Comment section can’t have it both ways.
@@hard2hurt legally, this is assault. Assault Definition The legal definition of assault is an intentional act that gives another person reasonable fear that they'll be physically harmed or offensively touched. No physical contact or injury has to actually occur, but the accused person must have intentionally acted in a way to cause that fear. 3 guys getting in your face, pursuing you, and continuing to do so after you've told them no, stop. Yep, assault.
@@hard2hurtthe shooter absolutely have no idea what is goin on. If I get approached like that by 3 strangers, I will make sure that I will unalive them first if I have the weapon. People react differently when they are in that situation. I hope that pranksters are aware of the risks of what they’re doin.
I think the part that you are missing is probably the "victim" behaving like a complete bellend for the entire court proceedings as well and the members of the jury not taking him seriously at all. I haven't seen the trial but if that's his actions when interviewed outside of court, I'm guessing he couldn't stay serious inside a courtroom either.
Maybe this's already what you're saying, but I'd add probably that there's a lot of people who already severely dislike 'youtube pranks'. He'd get shredded by the defense and look like an absolute idiot to the jury, if he was stupid enough to get on the stand.
his youtube channel is "Classified Goons" and he is still doing stupid sh!ts. an evidence was presented at court, of how a menace to society that prankster is. he has harassed thousands of people already. and this time 1 finally got him. there was a time where he pretended to be a security guard and blame an innocent man for stealing. people were watching, security guards came. also even the town sheriff to where the incident happened know the prankster. he is notorious and he has been to his office for so many times. but still didn't learn a thing..
Also... if the judge allowed videos of prior pranks to be admitted, that would affect the outcome. "Oh, this a-hole harasses everyone like this? He had it comin'!"
Youve said this a few times so it bears correcting: what the defendant thinks does matter in a self defense use of force incident. Along with the objective, reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm, he/she also has to the subjective fear. There are people sitting in prison for the rest of their lives because while they did have the first part, they admitted they weren't afraid for their lives.
Cops SHOULDN'T get to use their feelings as an excuse. Idiots on juries give them a free pass because ::hurrdurr::phuckaroundandfindout I'd guess you are one of those idiots. Do you want to live in a world where you can be shot for annoying someone?
Like Mike said in the video if you had bothered to listen to the whole thing. You can say you feared for your life all you want, but if your actions are not in line with what a reasonable person would have done, you are screwed. Cops are not exempt from the reasonableness standard either. A cop can claim they feared for their life all they want, but the law requires their actions to be in line with what a reasonable officer would do under those exact circumstances. Of course, sometimes (like in this case) jury’s get things wrong. That largely comes down to the luck of jury selection and timing.
@@KristoffFry i listened to the whole thing and disagreed, thats why i posted my comment. lets just say we are in disagreement that cops are not exempted from the reasonblenss standard and what constitutes a reasonable officer. the jury got it exatcly right.
Please show me the law (statue or case law) that states a cop may shoot someone in self defense as long as they feel afraid for their life. And please don’t waste my time with anecdotal examples of cops getting away with murder, anecdotes are not laws. To save time, I will give you one for free: Google search “Shooting of Daniel Shaver”. The jury got it wrong in that case too.
@@cruxmind Not everyone has English as a language that they speak everyday, many people across the world speak primarily a language that isn't English (myself for an example), it is 0K to be knowledgeable of more than a single language my gringo friend, also, if you are bold enough to go around trying to fight 3 dudes at once who are harassing and threatening you, all of whom are bigger than you and might have the same training or more than you, that's on you, not everyone is Batman to be able to pull that off without dying, getting the beating of it's life or being permanently disabled in the process.
I think it's arguable as self defense, considering the harassment was extended and beyond the amount seen on the clip shown, and the fact that it's three people, two harassers and a cameraman. It's borderline because it's a VERY sudden shift with no warning, but it was also one shot in reaction to extended harassment. So gray area, and I'm on the side of the driver, because if it wasn't on camera and was people looking for a mark to beat up and rob, I dont' want someone who NEEDS to defend themselves second guessing themselves into a grave because some punk bitch prankster FAFO'd on the wrong guy.
I think the Jury's decision was made based on this assumption of mine. They were thinking: "Okay, the youtuber somewhat deserves punishment for his behaviour, so we won't recognize the damage done to him but at the same time, the shooter can't go unpunished"
but that's not how it works. Charging the harasser to be guilty of harassment and punishing him for thag is a separate charge. The harasser can be guilty of harassment all the while the shooter severely wronged him with this surprise draw n'shoot. i think the jury is just dumb af. Your scenario is impossible. or, given what we saw on camera, the victim acted like a fucking retard for the whole case and the jury accounted for that.
@@yellowblobby yeah, no, you didnt understand my comment. The jury didnt actively punish him for harrassment, since this was about the shooting. The punishment here is that the damages done to the "prankster" won't be recognized.
@@BlacK40k exactly, this is about the shooting. Not about the harassment. So trying to punish the prankster for being a harasser in a case that's not about the harassment is impossible. You say it yourself and i fully understood it, "the guy deserves punishment for his behavior", and that is not a valid basis at all because like you just insisted, this is about the shooting and it shouldn't be conflated with the harassment case. Of course the jury didn't actively punish him since it's impossible. But it's one explanation that they wanted to do so regardless and smuggle something unrelated in to fit their bias which makes them massive idiots. Or the youtuber's court behavior was so terrible that it had to be taken into account, which i now think is more likely.
@@yellowblobby where you are wrong is the position that it is completely unrelated. The reason for why the man shot the prankster is very much part of the case and a greater context does matter.
I think they took into consideration that he was walking away which shows retreat he told the guy multiple times to leave him alone and presented obvious indicators that he felt threatened unfortunately if this was in Arizona being a stand your ground state he probably wouldn't have gone to jail either. Two large individuals threatening him that can present a deadly threat just in their physical statue over this individual and they were physically posturing at this guy in a lot of places that can present a deadly threat. I guess the bottom line is you shouldn't go around pranking intimidating and threatening people because this will happen to you.
larger man with a partner, clearly harassing another person (who is possibly disturbed) after being told to stop twice. the victim has no idea of the intentions or possibility of escalation by the harasser, so i can see how this interaction could cause the shooter to be afraid of harm from a further continuation of the encounter. (do i think the reaction was too quick? i lean that way yes, but in my mind the harasser got what he asked for.
@@JasonVoorheesFriday13th If the partners had guns, how would shooting him instead of using pepper spray or just threatening him with the weapon would have prevented the others to shoot back?
@Gatlink42 please never use a firearm in an attempt to deescalate a confrontation, they are there for when that's no longer an option. Also, I'm not saying I agree 100% with the first guy, but how would brandishing a weapon or using pepper spray stop 3 people with guns at different angles from taking someone's life? Hypothetically.
@@Gatlink42 Shooting (instead of brandishing or pepper spray) turns it into a 2 v 1 instead of a 3 v 1. Shooting (instead of brandishing or pepper spray) is more likely to cause other assailants to freeze. Shooting quickly (instead of brandishing or pepper spray) minimizes their time to think, time to draw, and time to aim.
I don't think the reaction was too quick. They'd been following the guy for over a minute while telling them to fuck off before the camera was even rolling and they didn't. De-escalation didn't work which means by them ignoring that they turned it into something else entirely. I think the gun was slightly excessive but at the same time the dude didn't know what was gonna happen to him. I don't feel bad whatsoever that the idiot got shot though. Even if it was too much he still put himself in that situation.
Two points, every juror believes they are “A reasonable person”, so it’s “What would I do?”. If you carry, rehearse in your mind as many situations as you can think of and determine what you might do. This is a situation where pepper spray before bullets might be a better choice.
When I was 15 I was walking in a shopping center. 2 20ish year old guys get out of their car. One starts cursing at me. I'm like wtf confused and the other guy goes to side of me and slaps me. Then the guys run away laughing. By putting the phone in his face with the odd message would allow the other guy to attack him from the side without him being able to defend himself. It's a common tactic criminals use to sucker punch people. Do you just wait till you get sucker punched then use force? Would this be different if he was doing this to a police officer or woman? I personally know two delivery drivers who have been robbed.
A huge dull eyed weirdo followed by a toadie suddenly getting into a strangers space and shoving stuff in their face and not making sense? That to me IS a sign that I am in danger because I have seen that exact situation right before someone gets f-ed up for kicks and giggles. A few years ago I would have gone after Shrek but his little buddy was also a potential danger. I am older now and don't train anymore and getting physical would be a even bigger risk for me. Pepper spray would have been better but I have no problem with him getting shot. There is something obviously wrong with the "prankster" because he hasn't gained any wisdom from this. I have a feeling he is actually a low key sadist and will end up hurting someone someday.
People are tired of the stupidity and maybe People will learn? Sadly? I don't think it was legally self defense but in the look the other way society today just stop harassing people?
Pepper spray may have been a more logical choice. He could have blasted both him and the camera guy, teaching them both to respect other people’s boundaries and move on to “prank” someone else who doesn’t mind. That being said, being stalked by 2 people in a really weird way one of whom was very much bigger-with the mental health issues today and all of those patients on the streets-who’s to say he didn’t fear for his life? It was creepy and persistent. One would think a RUclips prankster would have the sense to move on if the “prankee” is getting agitated. But then, that would require a prankster to think.
@@stevboo Possibly but just like they didn't see the gun coming out, if you're practiced in using your OC spray (which you should be) they won't see it coming either. They are too wrapped up in what they are doing.
@@AndiRose21 I know but won't the harasser react violently after being sprayed? Like start swinging punches wildly? I'm not that familiar with pepper spray's effects in real world scenarios
Just watched Branca's take on this.... it all hinged on "two on one, reasonably put the guy in fear of grave harm". Looks like the jury "split the baby" with giving the firing is guilty since the prankster is an Ahole. EDIT: But also said this is why you carry pepper spray in addition to the firearm, since spraying the heck out of Ahole would be reasonable to everybody!
How was the shooter supposed to know that it's okay bro, it's just a RUclips channel "prank"? You seem to rely heavily on this factoid that he other guy didn't know. Also, you are downplaying the event by characterizing it as "a guy following you around playing noises on their phone". You neglected to talk about how he entered dude's personal space. You neglected to mention that he was much larger and that there was more than one person. You neglected to talk about the big guy's demeanor. It really seems like you have an opinion and are working to justify it, rather than summing up what was happening. I don't personally have an opinion on whether it was actually self-defense or not, but I don't think you're being honest in the way you are telling your version of the events. And there has to be some leg to stand on here seeing as how the jury didn't see it like you saw it. Oh, but you insulted the jury too to make sure you still got to be right. Not your finest hour and yeah, you probably should regret making this video as it shows a lack of your critical thinking skills.
I disagree. If I'm minding my own business and some big idiot who was told repeatedly to not return to the location (the mall) because he's been caught harassing ppl before, then proceeds to return to the location to...follow, badger and intimidate alongside sexually suggestive dialog...yeah, I'd respond with calls to leave me alone, followed by force and if I felt threatened enough, lethal force 🤷♂️.
2 men, both larger than the shooter, were harassing him and continued to follow him after his repeated attempts to retreat and multiple demands that they leave him alone. Their pursuit of him after his attempts to retreat may have put him in fear for his life. The shooter had no way of knowing why they were doing what they were doing, or their motivation for doing it. From appearances, the shooter didn't look like the kind of person that could handle two younger, stronger opponents. All in all, it was a good shoot.
In germany youve got to use violence that is considered appropiate to the violence youre trying to protect yourself from. Shooting a guy whos just harrasing you would get you in jail azap
Agree with you. Being harassed without being touched definitely deserves some slurs as warning fallowed by a push. Jumping straight towards ending the life is extremely disproportionate imo.
0:58 yeah, I’m not disagree with you on this one. From the perspective of the guy who shot him this very easily turned into a mugging or a knockout game or just a straight up ass whipping. This was 100% a justified self-defense, because the intimidating threatening behavior created enough uncertainty. The man who shot him could argue affectively in court. I didn’t know if my life was in danger or not. We need to stop, pretending that self-defense means, which is perfectly prove they are life was indeed, in danger, in order to claim self-defense, we only need to be able to prove that the other person gave me reasonable suspicion of harm
Yes, you should definitely regret having made this video but you won't because, like the overgrown child named Tanner Cook, you're obviously in it just for the clicks. And I admit I fell for it. Calling this kind of assault and harassment a "prank" is just a humiliating misuse of the English language.
I can only speak for my state but I'm pretty sure the Use of Force Laws say that a person is legal if they reasonably believe they are in danger of death or serious harm. He didn't get a minute to be warned or given time to think about it. Nice 20/20 armchair opining. You rock👍
It was. You know how to fight, this guy doesn’t. He was being threatened and intimidated buy a guy nearly twice his size. If it was a woman nobody would say it’s not self defense.
@@m4rvinmartian He has a right to express his thoughts. I understand where he is coming from, but i think since i don't have all the facts, i defer to the ruling on it.
Mike u r right 💯%. It was wrong to follow and harass but not deserving of a chance to die, aka get shot. Unfortunately the whole karma thing might have overruled the man made law and took matters into its own hands to teach that boy a lesson ( that he missed.)
The big guy is a mama's bully boy, a potential criminal; he is a coward, pranking on women and smaller frame people... The little guy was confronted by 2 guys, one of them big enough to potentially inflict enough physical damage, even death.... That was a very scary, frightening, terrorizing situation and potentially dangerous for the little guy.... It is easy to judge and analyze a situation in a calm, no threat scenario. Would the abuser dare to do that to a football player?
...skinny bald guy has wierd notions of what it is to really defend one's self while being smaller, out numbered and unprepared. ....but see, skinny B-man, the victim WAS prepared. Just not how you see it. Skinny B, its important to note that Giant fat rich man didn't get double tapped- AND his two othe accomplices DID NOT advance and harm the victim, as respect had been established and social order re asserted. Real self defense is chaos Skinny-B, and to get out it unscathed is to re establish order. Not easy to do.
I'm from a country without civilian gun carrying, so I agree that there are definitely ways to diffuse this situation without shooting. But the one single thing that makes me even consider guns as a sensible thing is "when you're in danger and the other guy is much bigger than you, you're not automatically fucked because the gun equalizes the situation." That exact scenario plays out, and your stance is he should have taken the 3-on-1 fight with three guys bigger and younger than him? What would squaring up and throwing a punch have done if these guys actually meant harm? We see the RUclips video titled "prank", he doesn't, he just sees dudes coming up to harass him. Punching the big dude just gives the green light for the three to swarm and beat him up. Drawing the gun without firing presented a huge risk that you yourself have hammered on a hundred times in your videos: drawing a gun without skills just means the bad guy has a gun now. If any situation would ever convince me that guns for self-defense make any sense at all, this video would have done it. Sincerely shocked by your analysis on this, specifically because of how often you use these exact situations as examples in your own instructions.
It was self defense. Video makes it clear. Victim attempted to escape and the nitwit and his stooges pressed the attack. Victim told them three times to stop and at one point attempted to push the nitwit away. Victim was completely justified in thinking that the four guys who were larger than he was and who were chasing him were planning robbery and / or physical violence.
He was harassing him and was much bigger and in the world we live in knowing how craxy the world is he may have been afraid for his life today? Not saying it was justified but with the atmosphere today it was a possibility?
There is a big thing missing here about whether the jury verdict was fair: That is the fact that the shooter Alan Coolie has been in jail since April. He has already been sitting in jail for 5 months. Tanner cook spent (I think) a couple of weeks in hospital, he suffered no permanent injuries and clearly wasn't traumatised by the event. Colie had already been punished more than enough. He does not deserve any more jail time whatsoever. At the end of the day it's the jury who decides what's legal and what isn't. In this case they made the correct decision. (Except for the gum charge he was found guilty of. He should have been cleared of all charges).
Gotta say you're wrong on this one, Mike. It was self-defense. Those dudes were bigger than him, there were 3 of them, they harassed him prior to the video, he tried to leave, and they followed while continuing to invade his space. If I'd been on the jury, Not guilty on all charges.
"He should have been punched in face or in jail" Yeah, but the police were not around, and Alan Colie was a lot smaller and may not know how to fight. Also pranksters can become violent themselves. It starts out just teasing then it can escalade into a full on beating. Justified because in helps make for more respectful society. Mind your own business and leave people be.
Come on man that’s not a charitable interpretation of people’s points. The short delivery driver had one hand preoccupied with a customers order. Was being following and harassed despite trying to walk away and telling them to stop more then one and was outnumbered. Not to mention the dude he shot was a lot bigger then him and had his hands up in the delivery guys face more then once all the while intentionally being incoherent for a prank. I think a reasonable person would interpret that they’re about to get a beatdown or robbed by a nonsensical harasser and his company.
1. @hard2hurt - If you have a daughter delivering food and some punk ass man did this, should she fight a 6'4 dude instead of pulling out a legal CCW? Colie could have just dropped the food and ran but AFAIK Virginia has stand your ground laws that don't require a retreat. Colie even began retreating as Cook kept coming after him. 2. "He should have just punched him". Cook is a god damn unit and unless Colie is highly trained in martial arts, it'd be a losing battle. He was also wearing clothes that easily can conceal a weapon. Getting into a street fight with an unknown assailant unless you have a clear advantage is horrendously stupid. There's also the potential for multiple assailants which makes the fighting option even worse. 3. The harassment went on for several minutes before the video recorded. Once Colie started swatting the phone away, Cook should have stopped and ended the "prank". Even as he was backing up and saying stop, Cook continued walking towards him. That's both harassment and threatening behavior to any reasonable person. This goes especially for a delivery driver with a large bag of food, and drivers are known to be enhanced targets for thieves. This wasn't a complete textbook case of self-defense, but there's no way that Colie should have been criminally convicted for it. Perhaps a slap on the wrist if it was illegal to carry where he was, but to suggest he should go to jail for this is insane.
3 on 1 except the 3 weren't attacking the 1 or doing anything that would justify lethal force. Someone following, harassing, and annoying you is not justification for lethal force under the law.
@@LunaticKD1991 You aren't obligated to wait for the first punch before exercising lethal force. If you reasonably perceive an imminent threat from 3 people who are surrounding you, approaching aggressively, your "annoying" in hindsight can be seen as "imminent threat" in the moment.
I would be fine with this outcome if it wasn't for the fact that self defense rulings were far from universal. On one side you got this guy who got away with attempted murder that was in response to harassment and on the other a woman got sent to prison for firing a warning shot to scare off an abusive partner.
Saw a documentary where a woman shot and killed an abusive partner and ended up in prison. It was only when the abusive partner made a move towards her child's bedroom that she actually killed him. The fact she ended up in prison for justified self defense is a testament to how problematic the way jurors decide things can be.
It may not be self defense, but I can't really blame the guy for shooting him. Seriously, you don't fuck with complete strangers. I really don't have a problem with him shooting him. You just don't go harassing complete strangers like that.
@@MaxxRemKing1 It doesn’t matter if it’s appropriate or not. If you harass a total stranger, there will be consequences of some kind, sometimes extreme. In this case, it was extreme. He messed with a complete stranger and got a response in spades. So yeah, I have no problem with him getting shot.
I think guys like him who carry a gun do so because they have no ability for self defense but don't realize that the gun could be taken from them in a struggle till they are faced with a situation. Then they panic and fire. Sometimes arming yourself is giving the aggressor access to a weapon. Thanks icy Mike
You assume too much; bullies often work to provoke a reaction just so that they can justify assaulting somebody. For all Alan knew, if he pushed or attempted to punch the Tanner, Tanner may have then kicked the crap out of him, remember that Tanner had two guys ready to back him up. Alan chose, while in fear, to not give them that opportunity, but to end the situation after first trying three times to escape and walk away. Alan took out the leader, did not continue to shoot him until he was dead, did not shoot at his accomplices, did not run away. He stood his ground as best he could in the situation. In his mind it was not a prank, he was outnumbered by three guys who were determined to push the situation to a violent conclusion, and they succeeded.
It wasn't self defense. That's without question. The jury made the wrong decision. If the pranksters were attacking him and/or preventing him from leaving aka kidnapping then it might've been self defense. However neither of those things happened and there's video evidence showing it never happened. What the video does show is the guy pulling a gun and shooting the prankster for being annoying and harassing him which isn't enough to claim self defense or showing a reasonable fear for his life. As a gun owner you need to know not only how to use a gun but when you can use a gun when it comes to the law. You can't just shoot people or use lethal force on someone for just being annoying.
@@andreshermosa1633 False information is false son. The "I feared for my life!" defense ain't going to hold up in court. You don't get to shoot someone just because they were annoying and harassing you. The dude who shot the RUclipsr was not assaulted at all. Holding a phone up to someone is not assault so there goes that defense. Also you don't get to shoot someone because you thought the worst could happen. You have to have a legitimate reason to fear for your life such as seeing a weapon in their hand or a threat being made as they're approaching you. Not just simply following you. I could say I was in fear for my life and kill anyone I wanted to if that's all it took to be covered by self defense under the law in the courts if that was how it worked but that's not how it works at all. Sorry to burst that fantasyland bubble but that's reality for you. Educate yourself on the law as it is written rather than your opinion of what you think should be the law.
First half I was like yeah I agreed with Mike, I thought yeah maybe I just like to see he get the " fk around and find out " but then I saw he did the face in the interview, sad the guy didn't double tap.
I kind of agree with others that the fact it is 3 on 1, and the suggestion that this was an extended period of harassment before the use of force changes how we define reasonable. If I want to throw hands, being outnumbered 3 to 1 is pretty much always a way to get my head kicked in. Unless you are very confident and/or skilled 3 on 1 with the other guys being bigger is not a fight anyone wants. And believing people harassing you like that would assault you is fairly reasonable. So a reasonable person might think the threat of force, like a gun, would be reasonable in this situation. Shooting with no warning (that is going to deadly force, when no actual violence or explicit threat of violence has been made) is a step too far for self defence in my eyes. That being said if this was the only weapon the guy had access to I can see some people thinking it was reasonable. And had he made the threat clearly, and then they continued to go after him, I would be inclined to agree.
It was bully attacking a working man, the jury made an error in convicting on the final charge. If you’re a self defense expert, two people 6 inches from you gesturing while you moved about 10 yards are a threat. Haven’t you seen the numerous videos of people attacked and killed by deranged individuals. I guess you’re wrong, because he was acquitted. Bully attacking a vulnerable individual got what he deserved and it was satisfying to see Tanner get his comeuppance. The father, mother and son are pretentious, privileged narcissists living in the wealthiest county in the USA. This is not a unique case, individuals have been shot and killed though they had no visible weapons, while the shooter was acquitted. In NYC people are killed all the time by the deranged, if you’re in NY just turn on the news. The moral high ground is wonderful until someone comes after you.
He had no idea of the dudes intentions and when you got two up on you i imagine his adrenaline was throught the roof thinking the worst thing , he felt scared for his life and i dont blame him.
Mike, here is an extra bit of info… the charge of “aggregated malicious wounding” needs malicious intent. If you think the delivery guy didn’t have malicious intent, then he is not guilty.
not verbally warning that you have a weapon, not physically hinting at it, but quickly draw and instantly shoot so the victim can't even process the gun and flee; is not what someone who doesn't have a bias towards hurting someone would do in this context. This guy had pent up anger against his harasser and translated it into unreasonable use of lethal force. He was not a scaredy cat that simply panicked. He didn't hesitate to make physical contact and slap his harasser's hand. That by the way destroys all the arguments of "oh but he was scared from the big guy, and uh he looked insane", he ALREADY was brave enough to make physical contact and nothing happened in response. That's almost a green light. Then he fucking instantly drew and shot.
@@johnbell1810 "stop" is not a warning of incoming lethal force lmao, people would be walking around pretty scared if it was the case you're confusing yourself with police terms
I carry a gun and things have just gotten insane in this country to the point people shoot people for any reason. I had people think my car was an uber recently. nobody got shot. I got out and they realized it wasn't their uber
Sorry but here in México if 3 dudes aproach you makin this kind of things you dont think is a prank, you think this guys are "hig in drugs" and they want rob you o kill you ( yes some people will cut you throat for your cheap cell phone) so i understand why the guy enter in panic and shoot the guy. So only a person who has training can think rationally and act in the correct way and a gun or knife is more intimidating than you fist. Sorry for my bad english its not my main lenguage
Shane! What do you think the shooter should have done differently? Seems like there wasn't a lot of time to act, and the big dude was right on top of him..
He was much smaller than the "prankster". In a fight he gets his ass handed to him. Some people cant or have never fought, not even pillow fights, never thrown a punch. I doubt if I could make a case for self defence, but thats not to say that someone else couldn't. If the prankster was some Brock Lesner 300lb MF, you still think he should throw a punch or sling some lead?
I really do not like your take on this because you are talking about what you a trained person would do in a situation like this not an average unskilled untrained person who is scared and fearful for there life.
Yeah it was. Giant dude squared up on him acting like a freak, another guy there too, he was absolutely justified in thinking he could be on the ground getting assaulted in seconds. So he used actual self defense to end the threat after numerous warnings. ACTUAL self defense, not the bullshit you peddle. Manlet that’s never been in a fight. lol
2 guys getting in the guy's face and following him even after he moved away and told them to stop repeatedly. one guy is a full head taller and 100 pounds heavier than him... just because there was no shoving or grabbing does not mean he would not be scared enough to fear for his safety... i
Brilliant, I didn't even know this happened seeing as I don't watch that kind of content. I get to go watch an idiot get shot now! Thanks! Given the amount of time the law has adversely affected people who didn't deserve it - Seeing this result is just a win for all of us
First off, its not the same as someone staring at you. The guy was approaching him in a threatening manner with another guy. They kept approaching him as he tried to get away. The guy was outnumbered and outweighed... and he's probably never trained in fighting. So you're saying that guy has to take the risk of fighting two guys, one of which is much bigger than him, before he can feel threatened? If it was a smaller female, I feel like you wouldn't have come down as hard.
It isn't incumbent upon a victim of harassment to assume the intent or capabilities of the person harassing them. Ever. Delivery guy is the victim here, not the "prankster". That sort of "prank" is very commonly used by criminals in the real world to distract a victim and throw them off guard before robbing and assaulting them. Keep in mind that Colie also had buddies with him... which is an obvious disparity of force. Prankster effed around and found out. This sort of "prank" bullshit needs to stop. Blaming the victim here also absolutely needs to stop.
Little man harrassed by 3 larger men. If he felt threatened ABSOLUTELY had the right to defend himself by any means he deemed necessary. Who are you to tell someone else when they should feel threatened by 3 large attackers or when deadly force is necessary?
No this is self defense. There's at least 2 people, in his personal space, shoving a phone playing a recording of a potentially homophobic message to him whilst he has one of his hands occupied, he told them to stop and walked off peacefully and they continued. If he's aware of the person recording then it's a 3vs1.
I know americans will hate me for saying that, but its a good exemple that firearms should be better controlled. This guy didnt have the discernment necessary to use a firearm in a good way, and that is the case for most.
He had his hands full and he was outmatched. Starting a striking exchange with a much larger person that has no issue invading your personal space anyway, all while carrying a gun could go very wrong. I do, however, agree that this is why it’s important to carry less lethal options… part of me wonders if spraying this guy would have resulted in anything more than being pounced on.
It was jury nullification. They didn’t want him doing time on the big charge so they found him guilty of one of the lesser charge. So they’re saying that what he did was wrong, but not wrong enough to get the punishment he’d have gotten for the big charge.
I hadn't thought of that possibility... probably because i defaulted to the jury being idiots. That's an interesting possibility.
That's a very interesting possible, mate
My exact thoughts, while it’s uncommon, jury’s have a right to “send a message”
@@hard2hurt jury nullification has been politicized for a while, cannabis legalization activists were doing a good job pushing out information about it before that movement started finding it's footing.
@@hard2hurt
You didn't realize that convicting on the big crime gets big punishment, but convicting on the small crime gets small punishment? I'm assuming you don't actually follow criminal cases involving self defense much, do you? I am a fan of yours generally, but you seem very ignorant on this topic.
The charges of aggravated malicious wounding and malicious discharge of a firearm also require the jury to find that Colie acted with malice.
If the jury finds that Colie was responding to a provocation that reasonably arouses fear or anger, then there is no malice under the law.
This is my take as well
Two against one, and arguably three against one when you add in the cameraman, continued harassment, being a smaller person...
Yeah, it's a sudden escalation, but it's also self defense.
Especially considering that it was ONE shot, not mag dumping, and the driver obviously didn't like that he just had to shoot someone.
I'm not shedding any tears over the use of force that happened, but this is definitely a situation where pepper spray was the correct tool for the job. If you carry a gun, this the perfect example of exactly why you also need something intermediate between "leave me alone" and "bang"
Also, just pulling it out and saying "fuck off" once more probably would work. And if not he's already with the gun out so it's just a finger move if they keep trying.
Never brandish a firearm in self defense with in arms reach of the assailant. If you're taking it out at that distance, you better be ready to use it. Because they can just grab it at that point.
This example does not prove you need something intermediate; it proves the opposite. The gun incapacitated his assailant immediately, and the jury ruled in his favor; all pros, no cons. If the jury did not rule in his favor, then maybe this example would support your point.
Pepper spray, in a one vs three? No thanks.
Three on one automatically means the leader's getting shot.
I think the jury was putting themselves in the shooter's shoes. I can't blame him for being scared of 3 guys harrassing him, with his hands full.
The guy showed some amount of "restraint" shooting the kid in the stomach. He could've shot him in the head or chest and killed him.
Id have voted not guilty, still would
@@reecewood1918 At least not guilty to the "malicious wounding" charge. There are lesser charges that might be applied though, because pulling the gun without shooting might have been enough in this situation.
@@dutchvanderbilt9969 It would have been better had he aimed right for the neck or groin.
@@MrJustonemorevoice don't know that I agree with that ....
What I don't like is the way his parent reacted to his funny faces, she took this as no big deal and laughed. This is a big deal because someone else now has a criminal record caused by her son's actions...does she realize he could be dead right now. I know if I acted that way I would've got my ass kicked by my parent right on national TV. Truly amazing parenting!!!
Pretty sure that was his lawyer. She's not going to talk crap publicly about the person she just defended in court.
@@somerando1073 It was his mom
@@stevbooexplains alot
Actions have consequences though and your responsible for them
@@kinbolluck476I agree.
The fact that getting a bullet in him seems to in no way caused him to reconsider his career of professional physical intimidation is all I need to know that the shooting was justified. It might not have been self defence, but it was justified, at least morally. One day, if he keeps this shit up, this dude is going to end up murdered in a busy intersection during the middle of the day and no one is going to see anything.
Or care
yea lol, He wouldn't dare try a prank like that in the hood. He'd get riddled with bullets.
@@MaxxRemKing1 He harasses people all the time and overall is just a stain on society as a person. That's the moral grounds, his harassing victim shot him. I wouldn't say its moral if he died, but just getting shot is fine.
@MaxxRemKing1 Self defence is a legal term.
I agree with what you said except for the part about it not being self defense.
Imo, if 3 strangers, at least one of whom is huge, are harassing you for no apparent reason and refuse to stop, you have good reason to believe they may harm you.
But, people are always going to differ on the meaning of the word "reasonable".
Self defense or not, people who don't prank strangers in public, don't get shot for pranking strangers in public. It's called natural selection.
This is exactly my stance lol. I could care less, and this guy did everyone a favor.
@@Papagiorgio153 I only hope that in the jury pool you would explain this position to the judge .
Also (and i'm sorry about this) it's "COULDN'T care less."
^ Average Redditor has spoken.
@@Jamoni1 Sweetie, these things you are saying... I just couldn't care any more.
@@stevena.7022 ☝🤓 Akshuallly i COULD care less. I guess its good for me then that the entire hypothetical scenario you painted was fabricated in your head.
It was at least 1vs 3, had he decided to punch any of the guys, all of them would have had justification to jump him, that shooter could have not only been beat up but could've been guilty of assault also. What they were doing is absolutely stupid and that youtuber feel no guilt about bullying people like that. At least no one died and I hope the bullies and anyone watching this video learned something from that situation.
They didn't learn anything. He said he's still going to make his harassment videos.
Stop calling people shooters I don’t make no sense unless they’re actually doing mass shootings
@@cavalieroutdoors6036well sh*t....
That kid is lucky he got shot in the gut and not in the head or chest.
@@ABGMASSAKAGOD Then what else should we call them? Victim/Perp are loaded terms.
If 3 strange men are *deliberately confusing you* while harassing you, especially if they're all more physically capable than you, then play it safe.
I actually like jury duty for these very reasons... What is funny is I can't get on a jury as prosecutors almost always bounce me.
He's outnumbered, outsized and being leaned over while a man is speaking upon things the shooter does not understand. The shooter gave multiple warnings to leave him alone, he's not being harassed, he's being assaulted. I wouldn't have shot him but I don't fault anyone that would.
So this is a good example of what I mean. He was not being assaulted. You believe that what was happening should be called assault. It isn't.
@@hard2hurt Assault is verbal, battery is physical, this man was being assaulted.
@@hard2hurt I mean, maybe that qualifies as assault in his jurisdiction. It doesn’t in mine, it doesn’t in yours, and it doesn’t in the jurisdiction where it happened, but maybe it does somewhere? The trouble with that argument is that if you water down the definition of assault enough that the gunman was being assaulted, then that new definition of Assault-Lite isn’t enough to justify the use of deadly force in self defense. If someone’s a victim of Diet Assault, that’s not enough to put *A Reasonable Person* in fear for their life. Comment section can’t have it both ways.
@@hard2hurt legally, this is assault.
Assault Definition
The legal definition of assault is an intentional act that gives another person reasonable fear that they'll be physically harmed or offensively touched. No physical contact or injury has to actually occur, but the accused person must have intentionally acted in a way to cause that fear.
3 guys getting in your face, pursuing you, and continuing to do so after you've told them no, stop.
Yep, assault.
@@hard2hurtthe shooter absolutely have no idea what is goin on. If I get approached like that by 3 strangers, I will make sure that I will unalive them first if I have the weapon.
People react differently when they are in that situation. I hope that pranksters are aware of the risks of what they’re doin.
I think the part that you are missing is probably the "victim" behaving like a complete bellend for the entire court proceedings as well and the members of the jury not taking him seriously at all. I haven't seen the trial but if that's his actions when interviewed outside of court, I'm guessing he couldn't stay serious inside a courtroom either.
It's a strong possibility...
Maybe this's already what you're saying, but I'd add probably that there's a lot of people who already severely dislike 'youtube pranks'. He'd get shredded by the defense and look like an absolute idiot to the jury, if he was stupid enough to get on the stand.
his youtube channel is "Classified Goons" and he is still doing stupid sh!ts. an evidence was presented at court, of how a menace to society that prankster is. he has harassed thousands of people already. and this time 1 finally got him. there was a time where he pretended to be a security guard and blame an innocent man for stealing. people were watching, security guards came. also even the town sheriff to where the incident happened know the prankster. he is notorious and he has been to his office for so many times. but still didn't learn a thing..
Also... if the judge allowed videos of prior pranks to be admitted, that would affect the outcome.
"Oh, this a-hole harasses everyone like this? He had it comin'!"
That jury probably would agree it was not self defense. Yet, they sent a message that people are sick of these harassment “prank” social media morons.
I don't think they have the authority to send that message lol
They punish criminals, not YT content they think is bad
@@johngr1747they technically do tho, it’s called jury nullification
Thered that third option for judgement that never gets used, "guilty but deserves no punishment", this could have been a great place to use it.
By misjudging ? ...Smart... Stalin has also sent a message once ....
How does that work ? Gulty but we won´t apply the law ? What is the law then for ? @@BucketBoatable
Youve said this a few times so it bears correcting: what the defendant thinks does matter in a self defense use of force incident. Along with the objective, reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm, he/she also has to the subjective fear. There are people sitting in prison for the rest of their lives because while they did have the first part, they admitted they weren't afraid for their lives.
funny how it seems cops get to use their feely feels and can say i feared for my life but the citizenry are not allowed that same consideration.
Cops SHOULDN'T get to use their feelings as an excuse. Idiots on juries give them a free pass because ::hurrdurr::phuckaroundandfindout
I'd guess you are one of those idiots. Do you want to live in a world where you can be shot for annoying someone?
Like Mike said in the video if you had bothered to listen to the whole thing. You can say you feared for your life all you want, but if your actions are not in line with what a reasonable person would have done, you are screwed. Cops are not exempt from the reasonableness standard either. A cop can claim they feared for their life all they want, but the law requires their actions to be in line with what a reasonable officer would do under those exact circumstances.
Of course, sometimes (like in this case) jury’s get things wrong. That largely comes down to the luck of jury selection and timing.
@@KristoffFry i listened to the whole thing and disagreed, thats why i posted my comment.
lets just say we are in disagreement that cops are not exempted from the reasonblenss standard and what constitutes a reasonable officer.
the jury got it exatcly right.
this is such a silly comment. no cop would have shot this guy and if he did he would have been charged.
Please show me the law (statue or case law) that states a cop may shoot someone in self defense as long as they feel afraid for their life. And please don’t waste my time with anecdotal examples of cops getting away with murder, anecdotes are not laws. To save time, I will give you one for free: Google search “Shooting of Daniel Shaver”. The jury got it wrong in that case too.
It might not have been self defense, but lets be real here: the "prankster" had it come it coming.
you even edited this message and still have typos...
but even so. A prankster just needs a punch. Not his life taken from him. It's a bit overkill.
@@cruxmind Not everyone has English as a language that they speak everyday, many people across the world speak primarily a language that isn't English (myself for an example), it is 0K to be knowledgeable of more than a single language my gringo friend, also, if you are bold enough to go around trying to fight 3 dudes at once who are harassing and threatening you, all of whom are bigger than you and might have the same training or more than you, that's on you, not everyone is Batman to be able to pull that off without dying, getting the beating of it's life or being permanently disabled in the process.
I think it's arguable as self defense, considering the harassment was extended and beyond the amount seen on the clip shown, and the fact that it's three people, two harassers and a cameraman.
It's borderline because it's a VERY sudden shift with no warning, but it was also one shot in reaction to extended harassment.
So gray area, and I'm on the side of the driver, because if it wasn't on camera and was people looking for a mark to beat up and rob, I dont' want someone who NEEDS to defend themselves second guessing themselves into a grave because some punk bitch prankster FAFO'd on the wrong guy.
I'm sure that many murderers and rapists have used the defence: They had it coming.
Hell there's a song about it. 😅
That's not a legal definition. 😂
@@MakCurrel It is a compelling argument
I think the Jury's decision was made based on this assumption of mine. They were thinking:
"Okay, the youtuber somewhat deserves punishment for his behaviour, so we won't recognize the damage done to him but at the same time, the shooter can't go unpunished"
but that's not how it works. Charging the harasser to be guilty of harassment and punishing him for thag is a separate charge. The harasser can be guilty of harassment all the while the shooter severely wronged him with this surprise draw n'shoot.
i think the jury is just dumb af. Your scenario is impossible.
or, given what we saw on camera, the victim acted like a fucking retard for the whole case and the jury accounted for that.
@@yellowblobby yeah, no, you didnt understand my comment. The jury didnt actively punish him for harrassment, since this was about the shooting. The punishment here is that the damages done to the "prankster" won't be recognized.
@@BlacK40k exactly, this is about the shooting. Not about the harassment. So trying to punish the prankster for being a harasser in a case that's not about the harassment is impossible. You say it yourself and i fully understood it, "the guy deserves punishment for his behavior", and that is not a valid basis at all because like you just insisted, this is about the shooting and it shouldn't be conflated with the harassment case.
Of course the jury didn't actively punish him since it's impossible. But it's one explanation that they wanted to do so regardless and smuggle something unrelated in to fit their bias which makes them massive idiots.
Or the youtuber's court behavior was so terrible that it had to be taken into account, which i now think is more likely.
@@yellowblobby where you are wrong is the position that it is completely unrelated. The reason for why the man shot the prankster is very much part of the case and a greater context does matter.
@@BlacK40k of course it's related, but only as far as the shooter is concerned. But you don't just punish someone twice for the same thing.
I think they took into consideration that he was walking away which shows retreat he told the guy multiple times to leave him alone and presented obvious indicators that he felt threatened unfortunately if this was in Arizona being a stand your ground state he probably wouldn't have gone to jail either. Two large individuals threatening him that can present a deadly threat just in their physical statue over this individual and they were physically posturing at this guy in a lot of places that can present a deadly threat. I guess the bottom line is you shouldn't go around pranking intimidating and threatening people because this will happen to you.
larger man with a partner, clearly harassing another person (who is possibly disturbed) after being told to stop twice. the victim has no idea of the intentions or possibility of escalation by the harasser, so i can see how this interaction could cause the shooter to be afraid of harm from a further continuation of the encounter. (do i think the reaction was too quick? i lean that way yes, but in my mind the harasser got what he asked for.
@@JasonVoorheesFriday13th If the partners had guns, how would shooting him instead of using pepper spray or just threatening him with the weapon would have prevented the others to shoot back?
@Gatlink42 please never use a firearm in an attempt to deescalate a confrontation, they are there for when that's no longer an option.
Also, I'm not saying I agree 100% with the first guy, but how would brandishing a weapon or using pepper spray stop 3 people with guns at different angles from taking someone's life? Hypothetically.
@@Gatlink42
Shooting (instead of brandishing or pepper spray) turns it into a 2 v 1 instead of a 3 v 1.
Shooting (instead of brandishing or pepper spray) is more likely to cause other assailants to freeze.
Shooting quickly (instead of brandishing or pepper spray) minimizes their time to think, time to draw, and time to aim.
@@jeremiahamundson2165
A gun is the ultimate de-escalation.
I don't think the reaction was too quick. They'd been following the guy for over a minute while telling them to fuck off before the camera was even rolling and they didn't. De-escalation didn't work which means by them ignoring that they turned it into something else entirely. I think the gun was slightly excessive but at the same time the dude didn't know what was gonna happen to him. I don't feel bad whatsoever that the idiot got shot though. Even if it was too much he still put himself in that situation.
Two points, every juror believes they are “A reasonable person”, so it’s “What would I do?”. If you carry, rehearse in your mind as many situations as you can think of and determine what you might do. This is a situation where pepper spray before bullets might be a better choice.
When I was 15 I was walking in a shopping center. 2 20ish year old guys get out of their car. One starts cursing at me. I'm like wtf confused and the other guy goes to side of me and slaps me. Then the guys run away laughing. By putting the phone in his face with the odd message would allow the other guy to attack him from the side without him being able to defend himself. It's a common tactic criminals use to sucker punch people. Do you just wait till you get sucker punched then use force? Would this be different if he was doing this to a police officer or woman? I personally know two delivery drivers who have been robbed.
There was no way that guy was going to throw a punch. He would've been ganged up on by the other 3, than what'd he do?
A huge dull eyed weirdo followed by a toadie suddenly getting into a strangers space and shoving stuff in their face and not making sense? That to me IS a sign that I am in danger because I have seen that exact situation right before someone gets f-ed up for kicks and giggles. A few years ago I would have gone after Shrek but his little buddy was also a potential danger. I am older now and don't train anymore and getting physical would be a even bigger risk for me. Pepper spray would have been better but I have no problem with him getting shot. There is something obviously wrong with the "prankster" because he hasn't gained any wisdom from this. I have a feeling he is actually a low key sadist and will end up hurting someone someday.
People are tired of the stupidity and maybe People will learn? Sadly? I don't think it was legally self defense but in the look the other way society today just stop harassing people?
Pepper spray may have been a more logical choice. He could have blasted both him and the camera guy, teaching them both to respect other people’s boundaries and move on to “prank” someone else who doesn’t mind.
That being said, being stalked by 2 people in a really weird way one of whom was very much bigger-with the mental health issues today and all of those patients on the streets-who’s to say he didn’t fear for his life? It was creepy and persistent. One would think a RUclips prankster would have the sense to move on if the “prankee” is getting agitated. But then, that would require a prankster to think.
Or even a taser.
That seems more dangerous somehow. They would've probably jumped him for it
@@ZeeHatley True.
@@stevboo
Possibly but just like they didn't see the gun coming out, if you're practiced in using your OC spray (which you should be) they won't see it coming either. They are too wrapped up in what they are doing.
@@AndiRose21 I know but won't the harasser react violently after being sprayed? Like start swinging punches wildly? I'm not that familiar with pepper spray's effects in real world scenarios
Bro, you OBVIOUSLY have never been jumped in a bad neighborhood. This is EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO before they btfo of you. You’re wrong.
Self defense: no
Deserved: yep
Just watched Branca's take on this.... it all hinged on "two on one, reasonably put the guy in fear of grave harm". Looks like the jury "split the baby" with giving the firing is guilty since the prankster is an Ahole. EDIT: But also said this is why you carry pepper spray in addition to the firearm, since spraying the heck out of Ahole would be reasonable to everybody!
If he had pepper sprayed the guy instead of shooting him, he would have been an uncontested international hero.
Why these super bad martial arts instructors think their bullshido is the answer.
Maybe not "self defense", but oh boy was it SATISFYING to see.
How was the shooter supposed to know that it's okay bro, it's just a RUclips channel "prank"? You seem to rely heavily on this factoid that he other guy didn't know. Also, you are downplaying the event by characterizing it as "a guy following you around playing noises on their phone". You neglected to talk about how he entered dude's personal space. You neglected to mention that he was much larger and that there was more than one person. You neglected to talk about the big guy's demeanor. It really seems like you have an opinion and are working to justify it, rather than summing up what was happening. I don't personally have an opinion on whether it was actually self-defense or not, but I don't think you're being honest in the way you are telling your version of the events. And there has to be some leg to stand on here seeing as how the jury didn't see it like you saw it. Oh, but you insulted the jury too to make sure you still got to be right. Not your finest hour and yeah, you probably should regret making this video as it shows a lack of your critical thinking skills.
Except... i mentioned all those things...
Those "prank" channels are just one of the many "Fuck around and find out" channels. He still didn't figure it out.
I disagree.
If I'm minding my own business and some big idiot who was told repeatedly to not return to the location (the mall) because he's been caught harassing ppl before, then proceeds to return to the location to...follow, badger and intimidate alongside sexually suggestive dialog...yeah, I'd respond with calls to leave me alone, followed by force and if I felt threatened enough, lethal force 🤷♂️.
The sad part is Tanner will probably come back worse than ever until someone finishes him off.
If he does continue to do this to people after getting shot, I think he’ll deserve it.
@@blockmasterscotthe is doing it. I just hope someone will sue him so he goes to jail and learns his lesson already
2 men, both larger than the shooter, were harassing him and continued to follow him after his repeated attempts to retreat and multiple demands that they leave him alone. Their pursuit of him after his attempts to retreat may have put him in fear for his life. The shooter had no way of knowing why they were doing what they were doing, or their motivation for doing it. From appearances, the shooter didn't look like the kind of person that could handle two younger, stronger opponents. All in all, it was a good shoot.
its the "malicious" part that gets debated. it indicates purposeful intention of hurting someone, which obviously wasn't the case here.
In germany youve got to use violence that is considered appropiate to the violence youre trying to protect yourself from. Shooting a guy whos just harrasing you would get you in jail azap
Agree with you. Being harassed without being touched definitely deserves some slurs as warning fallowed by a push. Jumping straight towards ending the life is extremely disproportionate imo.
Just glancing I'd say it was a case of harassment at best that didn't warrant a death.
0:58 yeah, I’m not disagree with you on this one. From the perspective of the guy who shot him this very easily turned into a mugging or a knockout game or just a straight up ass whipping. This was 100% a justified self-defense, because the intimidating threatening behavior created enough uncertainty. The man who shot him could argue affectively in court. I didn’t know if my life was in danger or not. We need to stop, pretending that self-defense means, which is perfectly prove they are life was indeed, in danger, in order to claim self-defense, we only need to be able to prove that the other person gave me reasonable suspicion of harm
Yes, you should definitely regret having made this video but you won't because, like the overgrown child named Tanner Cook, you're obviously in it just for the clicks. And I admit I fell for it. Calling this kind of assault and harassment a "prank" is just a humiliating misuse of the English language.
I can only speak for my state but I'm pretty sure the Use of Force Laws say that a person is legal if they reasonably believe they are in danger of death or serious harm. He didn't get a minute to be warned or given time to think about it. Nice 20/20 armchair opining. You rock👍
"legally speaking". He walked out....legally. Have a seat.
It was. You know how to fight, this guy doesn’t. He was being threatened and intimidated buy a guy nearly twice his size. If it was a woman nobody would say it’s not self defense.
Apparently the Jury/judge that heard the case and seen what was presented disagreed with your assessment.
@@m4rvinmartian He has a right to express his thoughts. I understand where he is coming from, but i think since i don't have all the facts, i defer to the ruling on it.
Mike u r right 💯%. It was wrong to follow and harass but not deserving of a chance to die, aka get shot. Unfortunately the whole karma thing might have overruled the man made law and took matters into its own hands to teach that boy a lesson ( that he missed.)
The big guy is a mama's bully boy, a potential criminal; he is a coward, pranking on women and smaller frame people...
The little guy was confronted by 2 guys, one of them big enough to potentially inflict enough physical damage, even death....
That was a very scary, frightening, terrorizing situation and potentially dangerous for the little guy....
It is easy to judge and analyze a situation in a calm, no threat scenario.
Would the abuser dare to do that to a football player?
...skinny bald guy has wierd notions of what it is to really defend one's self while being smaller, out numbered and unprepared.
....but see, skinny B-man, the victim WAS prepared. Just not how you see it.
Skinny B, its important to note that Giant fat rich man didn't get double tapped- AND his two othe accomplices DID NOT advance and harm the victim, as respect had been established and social order re asserted.
Real self defense is chaos Skinny-B, and to get out it unscathed is to re establish order.
Not easy to do.
I'm from a country without civilian gun carrying, so I agree that there are definitely ways to diffuse this situation without shooting. But the one single thing that makes me even consider guns as a sensible thing is "when you're in danger and the other guy is much bigger than you, you're not automatically fucked because the gun equalizes the situation." That exact scenario plays out, and your stance is he should have taken the 3-on-1 fight with three guys bigger and younger than him? What would squaring up and throwing a punch have done if these guys actually meant harm? We see the RUclips video titled "prank", he doesn't, he just sees dudes coming up to harass him. Punching the big dude just gives the green light for the three to swarm and beat him up. Drawing the gun without firing presented a huge risk that you yourself have hammered on a hundred times in your videos: drawing a gun without skills just means the bad guy has a gun now. If any situation would ever convince me that guns for self-defense make any sense at all, this video would have done it. Sincerely shocked by your analysis on this, specifically because of how often you use these exact situations as examples in your own instructions.
Please never buy a gun if you think this situation merited a shooting.
@@adamcosper3308 Maybe read his first sentence.
@@roofdogblues7400 I did.
Aggressive pranking must stop. The jury got it right. I will go further. The prankster needs to see prison time. He started all of this.
It was self defense. Video makes it clear. Victim attempted to escape and the nitwit and his stooges pressed the attack. Victim told them three times to stop and at one point attempted to push the nitwit away. Victim was completely justified in thinking that the four guys who were larger than he was and who were chasing him were planning robbery and / or physical violence.
Bro i hope you realize your wrong and make another video and delete this video
A little excessive perhaps but a good deterrent for these pranksters! 😂
Look at him tower over that guy. It was completely self defense and that Tanner idiot got what he had coming.
this is WILD, the pranks, the shooting, its all getting out of hand.
He was harassing him and was much bigger and in the world we live in knowing how craxy the world is he may have been afraid for his life today? Not saying it was justified but with the atmosphere today it was a possibility?
It was justified. Factually and legally. This was assault and battery by two people.
He got what he deserved.
IF THAT PUNK LEFT HIM ALONE HE NEVER WOULD'VE GOTTEN SHOT. FAR AS HE KNEW THE BIG GUY WAS GOING TO ATTACK HIM LIKE ALL THESE PEOPLE DO FOR VIDEOS
There is a big thing missing here about whether the jury verdict was fair: That is the fact that the shooter Alan Coolie has been in jail since April. He has already been sitting in jail for 5 months.
Tanner cook spent (I think) a couple of weeks in hospital, he suffered no permanent injuries and clearly wasn't traumatised by the event.
Colie had already been punished more than enough. He does not deserve any more jail time whatsoever. At the end of the day it's the jury who decides what's legal and what isn't. In this case they made the correct decision. (Except for the gum charge he was found guilty of. He should have been cleared of all charges).
Gotta say you're wrong on this one, Mike. It was self-defense.
Those dudes were bigger than him, there were 3 of them, they harassed him prior to the video, he tried to leave, and they followed while continuing to invade his space.
If I'd been on the jury, Not guilty on all charges.
ok, the guy just teaches boxing, bjj, and therefore believes that everyone should fight like in a boxing ring, otherwise it’s not self-defense
"He should have been punched in face or in jail" Yeah, but the police were not around, and Alan Colie was a lot smaller and may not know how to fight. Also pranksters can become violent themselves. It starts out just teasing then it can escalade into a full on beating. Justified because in helps make for more respectful society. Mind your own business and leave people be.
Lot of short kings in the comments who think it should be legal to kill anyone taller than them.
Come on man that’s not a charitable interpretation of people’s points. The short delivery driver had one hand preoccupied with a customers order. Was being following and harassed despite trying to walk away and telling them to stop more then one and was outnumbered. Not to mention the dude he shot was a lot bigger then him and had his hands up in the delivery guys face more then once all the while intentionally being incoherent for a prank. I think a reasonable person would interpret that they’re about to get a beatdown or robbed by a nonsensical harasser and his company.
1. @hard2hurt - If you have a daughter delivering food and some punk ass man did this, should she fight a 6'4 dude instead of pulling out a legal CCW? Colie could have just dropped the food and ran but AFAIK Virginia has stand your ground laws that don't require a retreat. Colie even began retreating as Cook kept coming after him.
2. "He should have just punched him". Cook is a god damn unit and unless Colie is highly trained in martial arts, it'd be a losing battle. He was also wearing clothes that easily can conceal a weapon. Getting into a street fight with an unknown assailant unless you have a clear advantage is horrendously stupid. There's also the potential for multiple assailants which makes the fighting option even worse.
3. The harassment went on for several minutes before the video recorded. Once Colie started swatting the phone away, Cook should have stopped and ended the "prank". Even as he was backing up and saying stop, Cook continued walking towards him. That's both harassment and threatening behavior to any reasonable person. This goes especially for a delivery driver with a large bag of food, and drivers are known to be enhanced targets for thieves.
This wasn't a complete textbook case of self-defense, but there's no way that Colie should have been criminally convicted for it. Perhaps a slap on the wrist if it was illegal to carry where he was, but to suggest he should go to jail for this is insane.
Question: What should he have done? I don't think a fist fight would have worked. It was essentially 3 on 1. Could he have flashed the pistol instead?
I was thinking flashing could have worked.
Three guys on one. That's disparity of force enough to justify lethal force.
3 on 1 except the 3 weren't attacking the 1 or doing anything that would justify lethal force. Someone following, harassing, and annoying you is not justification for lethal force under the law.
@@LunaticKD1991 You aren't obligated to wait for the first punch before exercising lethal force. If you reasonably perceive an imminent threat from 3 people who are surrounding you, approaching aggressively, your "annoying" in hindsight can be seen as "imminent threat" in the moment.
I would be fine with this outcome if it wasn't for the fact that self defense rulings were far from universal. On one side you got this guy who got away with attempted murder that was in response to harassment and on the other a woman got sent to prison for firing a warning shot to scare off an abusive partner.
Saw a documentary where a woman shot and killed an abusive partner and ended up in prison. It was only when the abusive partner made a move towards her child's bedroom that she actually killed him. The fact she ended up in prison for justified self defense is a testament to how problematic the way jurors decide things can be.
It may not be self defense, but I can't really blame the guy for shooting him. Seriously, you don't fuck with complete strangers.
I really don't have a problem with him shooting him. You just don't go harassing complete strangers like that.
@@MaxxRemKing1 It doesn’t matter if it’s appropriate or not. If you harass a total stranger, there will be consequences of some kind, sometimes extreme.
In this case, it was extreme. He messed with a complete stranger and got a response in spades.
So yeah, I have no problem with him getting shot.
F*ck around and find out!
Jury Nullification
I think guys like him who carry a gun do so because they have no ability for self defense but don't realize that the gun could be taken from them in a struggle till they are faced with a situation. Then they panic and fire. Sometimes arming yourself is giving the aggressor access to a weapon. Thanks icy Mike
Not this time though, huh.
From rules and laws that are made sure, but if we're talking about humanity and the planets common sense, he was defending himself.
You assume too much; bullies often work to provoke a reaction just so that they can justify assaulting somebody. For all Alan knew, if he pushed or attempted to punch the Tanner, Tanner may have then kicked the crap out of him, remember that Tanner had two guys ready to back him up. Alan chose, while in fear, to not give them that opportunity, but to end the situation after first trying three times to escape and walk away. Alan took out the leader, did not continue to shoot him until he was dead, did not shoot at his accomplices, did not run away. He stood his ground as best he could in the situation. In his mind it was not a prank, he was outnumbered by three guys who were determined to push the situation to a violent conclusion, and they succeeded.
It's kind of weird arguing that I am assuming too much with so many assumptions supporting your position.
It wasn't self defense.
That's without question.
The jury made the wrong decision.
If the pranksters were attacking him and/or preventing him from leaving aka kidnapping then it might've been self defense. However neither of those things happened and there's video evidence showing it never happened.
What the video does show is the guy pulling a gun and shooting the prankster for being annoying and harassing him which isn't enough to claim self defense or showing a reasonable fear for his life.
As a gun owner you need to know not only how to use a gun but when you can use a gun when it comes to the law.
You can't just shoot people or use lethal force on someone for just being annoying.
@@andreshermosa1633 False information is false son.
The "I feared for my life!" defense ain't going to hold up in court.
You don't get to shoot someone just because they were annoying and harassing you. The dude who shot the RUclipsr was not assaulted at all. Holding a phone up to someone is not assault so there goes that defense.
Also you don't get to shoot someone because you thought the worst could happen. You have to have a legitimate reason to fear for your life such as seeing a weapon in their hand or a threat being made as they're approaching you. Not just simply following you.
I could say I was in fear for my life and kill anyone I wanted to if that's all it took to be covered by self defense under the law in the courts if that was how it worked but that's not how it works at all.
Sorry to burst that fantasyland bubble but that's reality for you.
Educate yourself on the law as it is written rather than your opinion of what you think should be the law.
That was a mentally ill guy, and those pranks will run into mentally ill armed people sooner or later.
Anti recording device on sale at Walmart.
First half I was like yeah I agreed with Mike, I thought yeah maybe I just like to see he get the " fk around and find out " but then I saw he did the face in the interview, sad the guy didn't double tap.
😂😂😂
I kind of agree with others that the fact it is 3 on 1, and the suggestion that this was an extended period of harassment before the use of force changes how we define reasonable.
If I want to throw hands, being outnumbered 3 to 1 is pretty much always a way to get my head kicked in. Unless you are very confident and/or skilled 3 on 1 with the other guys being bigger is not a fight anyone wants. And believing people harassing you like that would assault you is fairly reasonable. So a reasonable person might think the threat of force, like a gun, would be reasonable in this situation.
Shooting with no warning (that is going to deadly force, when no actual violence or explicit threat of violence has been made) is a step too far for self defence in my eyes. That being said if this was the only weapon the guy had access to I can see some people thinking it was reasonable. And had he made the threat clearly, and then they continued to go after him, I would be inclined to agree.
It was bully attacking a working man, the jury made an error in convicting on the final charge. If you’re a self defense expert, two people 6 inches from you gesturing while you moved about 10 yards are a threat. Haven’t you seen the numerous videos of people attacked and killed by deranged individuals. I guess you’re wrong, because he was acquitted. Bully attacking a vulnerable individual got what he deserved and it was satisfying to see Tanner get his comeuppance. The father, mother and son are pretentious, privileged narcissists living in the wealthiest county in the USA. This is not a unique case, individuals have been shot and killed though they had no visible weapons, while the shooter was acquitted. In NYC people are killed all the time by the deranged, if you’re in NY just turn on the news. The moral high ground is wonderful until someone comes after you.
He had no idea of the dudes intentions and when you got two up on you i imagine his adrenaline was throught the roof thinking the worst thing , he felt scared for his life and i dont blame him.
Mike, here is an extra bit of info… the charge of “aggregated malicious wounding” needs malicious intent. If you think the delivery guy didn’t have malicious intent, then he is not guilty.
not verbally warning that you have a weapon, not physically hinting at it, but quickly draw and instantly shoot so the victim can't even process the gun and flee; is not what someone who doesn't have a bias towards hurting someone would do in this context. This guy had pent up anger against his harasser and translated it into unreasonable use of lethal force.
He was not a scaredy cat that simply panicked. He didn't hesitate to make physical contact and slap his harasser's hand. That by the way destroys all the arguments of "oh but he was scared from the big guy, and uh he looked insane", he ALREADY was brave enough to make physical contact and nothing happened in response. That's almost a green light. Then he fucking instantly drew and shot.
@@yellowblobby bullshit. he was warned plenty of times to lay off.
@@johnbell1810 "stop" is not a warning of incoming lethal force lmao, people would be walking around pretty scared if it was the case
you're confusing yourself with police terms
Unsubscribed. Not everyone is physically able to fight or financially secure enough to waste time rolling around with grown men in their underwear.
Yeah you should only consume media you agree with. Smart.
The fact he was shot and gives zero fucks shows this mans gonna get popped again
I carry a gun and things have just gotten insane in this country to the point people shoot people for any reason. I had people think my car was an uber recently. nobody got shot. I got out and they realized it wasn't their uber
Sorry but here in México if 3 dudes aproach you makin this kind of things you dont think is a prank, you think this guys are "hig in drugs" and they want rob you o kill you ( yes some people will cut you throat for your cheap cell phone) so i understand why the guy enter in panic and shoot the guy. So only a person who has training can think rationally and act in the correct way and a gun or knife is more intimidating than you fist.
Sorry for my bad english its not my main lenguage
Dam it he survived…
I stand behind this 100%
Shane! What do you think the shooter should have done differently? Seems like there wasn't a lot of time to act, and the big dude was right on top of him..
He was much smaller than the "prankster". In a fight he gets his ass handed to him. Some people cant or have never fought, not even pillow fights, never thrown a punch. I doubt if I could make a case for self defence, but thats not to say that someone else couldn't. If the prankster was some Brock Lesner 300lb MF, you still think he should throw a punch or sling some lead?
I really do not like your take on this because you are talking about what you a trained person would do in a situation like this not an average unskilled untrained person who is scared and fearful for there life.
I do agree with you Mike
Yeah it was. Giant dude squared up on him acting like a freak, another guy there too, he was absolutely justified in thinking he could be on the ground getting assaulted in seconds.
So he used actual self defense to end the threat after numerous warnings.
ACTUAL self defense, not the bullshit you peddle. Manlet that’s never been in a fight. lol
2 guys getting in the guy's face and following him even after he moved away and told them to stop repeatedly. one guy is a full head taller and 100 pounds heavier than him... just because there was no shoving or grabbing does not mean he would not be scared enough to fear for his safety... i
Brilliant, I didn't even know this happened seeing as I don't watch that kind of content. I get to go watch an idiot get shot now! Thanks!
Given the amount of time the law has adversely affected people who didn't deserve it - Seeing this result is just a win for all of us
First off, its not the same as someone staring at you. The guy was approaching him in a threatening manner with another guy. They kept approaching him as he tried to get away. The guy was outnumbered and outweighed... and he's probably never trained in fighting. So you're saying that guy has to take the risk of fighting two guys, one of which is much bigger than him, before he can feel threatened? If it was a smaller female, I feel like you wouldn't have come down as hard.
It isn't incumbent upon a victim of harassment to assume the intent or capabilities of the person harassing them. Ever.
Delivery guy is the victim here, not the "prankster". That sort of "prank" is very commonly used by criminals in the real world to distract a victim and throw them off guard before robbing and assaulting them. Keep in mind that Colie also had buddies with him... which is an obvious disparity of force.
Prankster effed around and found out. This sort of "prank" bullshit needs to stop. Blaming the victim here also absolutely needs to stop.
I would have just tried to grabbed his phone and smashed it
Little man harrassed by 3 larger men. If he felt threatened ABSOLUTELY had the right to defend himself by any means he deemed necessary. Who are you to tell someone else when they should feel threatened by 3 large attackers or when deadly force is necessary?
No this is self defense.
There's at least 2 people, in his personal space, shoving a phone playing a recording of a potentially homophobic message to him whilst he has one of his hands occupied, he told them to stop and walked off peacefully and they continued. If he's aware of the person recording then it's a 3vs1.
Hey Steven Seagal. It was self defense. Not everyone can take on a crowd of people one at a time like you do.
I know americans will hate me for saying that, but its a good exemple that firearms should be better controlled. This guy didnt have the discernment necessary to use a firearm in a good way, and that is the case for most.
This is a classic example of fucking around, and henceforth, finding out.
Malicious is the keyword here. Intent is everything
He had his hands full and he was outmatched. Starting a striking exchange with a much larger person that has no issue invading your personal space anyway, all while carrying a gun could go very wrong. I do, however, agree that this is why it’s important to carry less lethal options… part of me wonders if spraying this guy would have resulted in anything more than being pounced on.