YouTube Mall Prank Victim Self-Defense Shooting Case Analyzed
By Attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andy Marcantel
October 27, 2023
A brief encounter between a DoorDash delivery driver and a YouTube prankster turned violent. This incident led to criminal charges and sparked a public conversation about the limits of self-defense. Criminal defense attorneys Marc J. Victor and Andrew C. Marcantel delve into the footage and analyze self-defense principles, particularly the proportional use of force.
The Incident
The video shows YouTuber Tanner Cook holding a phone inches away from the face of delivery driver Alan Colie. Mr. Colie repeatedly tells Mr. Cook to stop and walks away. However, Mr. Cook follows Mr. Colie, still holding the phone to Mr. Colie’s face. The situation escalates when Mr. Colie pulls out a handgun and shoots Mr. Cook.
“If you look at the prankster, Mr. Cook, he’s significantly bigger than Mr. Colie… I mean he’s much taller, he’s far heavier. Even if it was just one-on-one here, you have a huge mismatch.”
– Attorney Victor
Legal Analysis of The Incident
The attorneys agree that Mr. Cook’s relentless and bizarre behavior could certainly be perceived as threatening. Mr. Colie attempted to de-escalate the situation by issuing verbal commands and using physical gestures to end the confrontation. However, the issue is whether it was appropriate for Mr. Colie to respond with deadly force. To justify deadly force, the law requires that a person reasonably believe they are at imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm.
The complicating factor in Mr. Colie’s defense is his immediate escalation to using a firearm without first brandishing the weapon or issuing a final warning. However, the size disparity, Mr. Cook’s erratic conduct, and the presence of bystanders may collectively support Mr. Colie’s claim that he felt threatened.
Criminal Proceedings and Defense Strategy
Mr. Colie was charged with malicious wounding, a serious offense comparable to aggravated assault and unlawful discharge of a firearm in a shopping mall. He was represented by public defender Adam Pouilliard, who, according to the attorneys, performed admirably despite the incident being publicly considered a “bad shoot.”
Mr. Pouilliard successfully argued that Mr. Colie acted in self-defense. As a result, Mr. Colie was acquitted of the malicious wounding charge but was found guilty of the lesser offense of unlawful discharge of a firearm. This outcome illustrates the delicate balance in self-defense law; a person may avoid conviction on a serious charge but still be held accountable for secondary offenses tied to the event.
USCCA Membership and Insurance Coverage Issues
Another significant element in this case was Mr. Colie’s membership with the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA). Despite contacting the organization immediately after the incident, he did not receive legal support for his defense. Prosecutors sought to use Mr. Colie’s call to USCCA as evidence.
“We haven’t spoken to Mr. Colie, so I don’t know the facts. All I can report is what his public defender told me and what he said was yes, Mr. Colie was indeed a USCCA member and the USCCA decided not to cover this as a self-defense incident.”
– Attorney Victor
Mr. Pouilliard expressed doubts about USCCA’s willingness to help, explaining that many of these organizations exclude coverage when the incident is classified as a criminal act. The attorneys also referenced similar incidents, such as the case of Kayla Giles, in which the USCCA denied support despite a self-defense claim.
Legal and Practical Takeaways
This case illustrates the grey areas that surround self-defense law, particularly the tension between subjective fear – what the individual genuinely feels – and objective reasonableness – what a typical person might believe in the same situation. Even when a jury agrees that a shooting is legally justifiable, defendants can still be convicted for related offenses, such as unlawful weapon use.
“At the end of the day, was it reasonable under these circumstances to do that? That’s the question… the second thing is, who’s making that determination? It’s a randomly selected group of people from the local community, you have no idea what they’re actually going to think is reasonable.”
– Attorney Victor
Role of the Jury and Verdict Analysis
The verdict in this case reflects the complex deliberations juries often face. In post-trial statements, jurors revealed that they were initially divided. The attorneys believe that the jurors may have reached a compromise by convicting Mr. Colie on a lesser charge, thereby imposing some level of accountability without delivering a full conviction. According to the attorneys, this is not unusual. Juries frequently incorporate their own life experiences, personal beliefs about firearms and self-defense, and emotional reactions into their decision-making. These human factors introduce a level of unpredictability that can significantly influence trial outcomes in self-defense cases.
Inconsistencies in the Verdict
“This is an inconsistent or at least seemingly legally inconsistent set of verdicts.”
– Attorney Marcantel
Attorney Marcantel emphasizes that the criminal justice process, including jury deliberations, frequently involves compromises that may appear inconsistent from a legal standpoint. In this case, the jury acquitted the defendant of malicious wounding. However, they also convicted him of unlawfully discharging a firearm in public, creating a legal contradiction. How can a shooting be both lawful and unlawful?
Mr. Pouilliard argued this inconsistency in a post-trial motion, asking the court to overturn the discharge conviction. However, the judge denied the motion. The attorneys emphasize that jury verdicts lack explanation, so it is unclear if self-defense was the reason for the acquittal in Mr. Colie’s case. The attorneys explain that the acquittal could have stemmed from other factors, such as Mr. Colie’s mental state.
Conclusion
The attorneys urge viewers not to make assumptions about a case based solely on a video. They emphasize the importance of considering all the facts involved. In Mr. Colie’s case, USCCA dismissed it as a “bad shoot,” but his public defender, Mr. Pouilliard, proved otherwise in court.
If you want to learn more about our Attorneys On Retainer Program and how we are committed to defending your self-defense rights, please call 866-404-5112 or email us.
