r/cringereels • u/kendavis135 • 16h ago

TikTok prankster tried to trick someone

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

63

u/Lexi_November 16h ago

He was charged with discharging a firearm inside a mall, but not for the shooting.

60

u/Thin_Bother8217 16h ago

He was charged with both. Acquitted on the shooting, convicted for discharging. Judge sentenced him to time served (about 8 months) and he got out same say as sentence:

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/delivery-driver-sentenced-to-time-served-in-shooting-of-youtube-prankster-at-dulles-town-center

22

u/Lucky_Trouble9833 15h ago

Thats a load of shit. How tf you gonna be acquitted for defending yourself then be charged for how you defended yourself?

26

u/It_Just_Exploded 15h ago

I think it was because he carried his weapon onto property that was posted as "gun free". The mall is private property, the owner has the right to say weapons aren't allowed, so technically he broke that law.

Its one of those things that many legal CCW holders do and no ones the wiser unless you have to use it. And if you have to use it, its worth eating the lesser charge to protect yourself and/or family.

Yeah, its kinda fucked up, but thats how the law works sometimes unfortunately.

13

u/Fryboy11 13h ago

It doesn't stop at private property. States that allow open and or closed carry everywhere still carve exceptions so you can't carry in certain public buildings, State colleges are fine. Those public buildings you can't carry in are the state capital buildings where the lawmakers have offices and passed the law saying you can carry a gun anywhere, except near my office.

1

u/unlordtempest 11h ago

In Washington State, its illegal to carry firearm into places that sell drugs. Liquor stores, bars, weed stores, pharmacies, etc. However, you can be under the influence of any of these and legally carry.

1

u/os_beef 9h ago

Liquor stores are fine. Bars, areas of restaurants restricted to 21+, and weed shops are no go.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

...

(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor and cannabis board as off-limits to persons under 21 years of age;

There's an exemption for business owners and their employees.

(11) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment.

1

u/RJ_MacreadysBeard 7h ago

Restricted to 21+? You mean in the states, a kid under 21 years old can walk around with a gun? Seems insane to have people walking around with guns, but I never even considered how young they could legally be. Scary shit.

1

u/os_beef 2h ago

You mean in the states

I'm talking about Washington, a State in the US. Federal law is applicable, but secondary in this context.

The areas I'm referring to are restricted to people 21 years of age or older, because people under 21 aren't allowed to buy booze or weed. In other words, kids and adults 18-20 aren't allowed in bars or weed shops. People with concealed carry permits also aren't allowed in those areas, with the exception of employees under certain conditions.

Seems insane to have people walking around with guns

We have a concealed carry permitting system here in Washington. In order to conceal a pistol, you must apply for and receive a permit from your local sheriff. Just like buying a gun, you must have a clean legal record, not adjudicated mentally defective, etc. In addition, being subject to a court order related to DV, anti harassment, extreme risk, etc disqualifies an applicant. Open carry is effectively restricted to 21+, with some caveats.

but I never even considered how young they could legally be. Scary shit.

Two things to consider. First, we allow 18-20 year old citizens to join the military and die for our country, but also don't grant those adults full rights or privileges. It seems logically inconsistent and unfair. Maybe we should redefine the age of adulthood, or grant them all the rights and privileges that adults supposedly have.

Second, why would the law stop someone intent on committing a crime? Overwhelmingly, people who go through the steps in order to legally carry a gun aren't the ones committing crimes.

0

u/It_Just_Exploded 13h ago

I figured government property was a given, as i havent seen a single government building that allowed civilians to carry weapons.

2

u/UnimagineDragons 7h ago

Please stop using the word civilians when it's not the right word. Police are civilians. Military cannon military doesn't apply

2

u/ResinFinger 2h ago

Correct police are civilians but a lot of gun laws are supported by police as long as they are exempt from them.

-3

u/It_Just_Exploded 7h ago

You and everyone else knows what is meant by it in the context. Just accept it.

5

u/NPJenkins 9h ago

I bet that charge comes packaged nicely with a revocation of your CCW as well. Total bullshit, imho.

3

u/-Clem 1h ago

Yes it does. That way, the next time you have to defend yourself, you get a concealed weapon charge.

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/fairlane-shooting-19-year-old-who-acted-self-defense-killing-mall-gunman-sentenced.amp

"What do you need a gun for protection in a mall, in the first place?" Asks the judge to the man who killed a mall shooter in defense of another.

1

u/NPJenkins 57m ago

I carry every time I’m in the mall. When you think about it, malls are vulnerable places because they’re areas of high traffic and they have been shot up multiple times in the past. What’s the point of having a CCW if you can’t carry in places where, statistically, you’re the most vulnerable?

1

u/dillweed67818 56m ago

Well that judge is dumb. He doesn't know about all the shootings and gang activity that was going on in certain malls in the late 80's into the 90's?

1

u/MAKs_Brick_House 13h ago

Then that’s a civil issue. Not criminal. A business prohibiting someone carrying a firearm doesn’t fall under law. In WV there are no laws regarding a private business not allowing firearms.

1

u/TheRealistoftheReal 1h ago

Except if…you know…state laws specifically make it a crime if the business has their property posted and you violate it.

1

u/General_Cranberry_29 11h ago

That would fall under civil wouldn't it? I guess it probably depends on the state 🫤

1

u/It_Just_Exploded 8h ago

It may vary by state, but in mine and the few nearby ones i'm familiar with its akin to trespassing. Which is a crime.

1

u/noreplyguy 5h ago

Indeed! Crazy you live in a country where everybody can have a gun, but when you walk through the entrance of the mall you suddenly have to trust everybody leaving it at home. And then what about when you’re on your way to the mall? You don’t take your gun then? I would also just take it with me and hope I don’t need to use it, just like I hope I don’t need to use it when I am allowed to carry.

1

u/icouldntve 1h ago

Instead of getting charged at all, you can just not take your gun to Disneyland. No one is compelling you to be a coward.

0

u/StageVarious2812 14h ago edited 12h ago

He lost his gun because the jury found against his claim of self defense. The VA appeals court's verdict is available online; so is the jury's. Per the appeal's court "Here, the evidence,viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Colie acted unlawfully in discharging his firearm and did not act in self-defense". Their verdict can be read here;https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0874244.pdf

2

u/It_Just_Exploded 13h ago

The self defense was ruled on, thats no longer up for debate. Though i think there being another charge because people were around is kinda dumb. If someone attacks you are you supposed to just let it happen since there's people around? The presence of others shouldn't be an automatic charge in cases of self defense (imo) it should be one of those things where if you defend yourself and don't hit anyone else aside from your attacker, then no charges. If you do end up hitting someone else, then you get the charge.

I think most of us have seen vids posted online of people getting absolutely blindsided and curbstomped in a crowd of people.

But like i said, illegal or not, if someone legit makes me believe my life or the life of my family member is in danger, i really wouldn't give a shit about that charge and it wouldn't even be a variable at the time.

0

u/StageVarious2812 13h ago

Brother if someone is clearly recording and just standing near you repeating a video on their phone you're not in mortal danger. Also it is completely up for debate, just because a jury acquits something doesn't automatically mean that it isn't valid to talk about. There was no one armed, no one attacking him, and no CLEAR and PRESENT danger. Annoying? Yes. Self-Defense? Not really. He shouldn't have fired his gun in that situation period and this is backed by the court's decision to find him guilty of a negligent discharge.

Also go ahead, you'll end up in the same situation and lose your ability to carry a firearm for life.

-1

u/PeachPassionBrute 13h ago

The self defense was ruled on, thats no longer up for debate.

That’s nonsense. Unless it went to the Supreme Court, even in a legal sense it isn’t exactly final. But anyone who isn’t acting on behalf of the government is welcome to have an opinion and debate as they please.

My views aren’t defined by courts.

0

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 13h ago

Just the one brain cell roaming around trying to figure out why we have courts instead of some random online.

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 13h ago

Two entirely different things.

He was right to shoot. That's why he was aquitted there.

He was not supposed to have a gun in the mall. How YOU feel about this being threatening doesn't matter to the law he broke. And to the jury who thank God isn't made of dumb fucks like you.

-1

u/StageVarious2812 13h ago

"Here, the evidence,viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for a rational jury tofind that Colie acted unlawfully in discharging his firearm and did not act in self-defense".

Page 11-12 of the court record accessible here; https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0874244.pdf

You can now stop pretending you're not dumber than rocks.

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 12h ago

Hey.. which charge is that one for again?

It's for the unlawful discharge? Oh yeah. Not the actual charge for hurting a human?

What happened to the charge for actually shooting the guy? Wanna find that one for me? Cause a jury can call me purple. If the case is about theft that doesn't really matter?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/jury-divided-over-whether-delivery-driver-who-shot-youtube-prankster-acted-in-self-defense/3432763/?amp=1

0

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago

Brother you think this is a gotcha when the actual JURY cited they found negligent discharge in an open building and did sided against his claim of self defense. You can't actually be this stupid, like genuinely.

1

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 11h ago

Aquiited on the charges.

Charged for the gun issues.

The jury says they were split. Then later aquitted him. WERE split.

Then the charge for the harm was dropped. We can read buddy. Like.. it's there?

1

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago

Holy shit. Yes, they didn't find he acted in malice The literal reason for the neg discharge is cited by the appellate judge. Holy crap you literally can't read.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 12h ago

Let's post the full results next time. (:

"A jury on Thursday found a delivery driver not guilty in the shooting of a YouTube prankster who followed him around a mall food court earlier this year in Northern Virginia.

Alan Colie, 31, was acquitted of aggravated malicious wounding in the shooting of Tanner Cook, 21, who runs the “Classified Goons” YouTube channel. The jury was split though on two lesser firearms counts, and decided to convict him on one and acquit him on the other."

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/jury-divided-over-whether-delivery-driver-who-shot-youtube-prankster-acted-in-self-defense/3432763/?amp=1

You posted court documents on different charges. This man was aquitted for the actual shooting of a human. And was convicted of having a gun in the wrong place.

Not everyone is dumb enough to read one paper and stop thinking. Sorry.

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 12h ago

Here's another one for you to ignore?

The jury's note said it is “divided in terms of whether the defendant acted in self defense.”

https://wjla.com/news/local/dulles-town-center-shooting-classified-goons-youtube-prank-door-dash-deliver-driver-self-defense-tanner-cook-alan-colie-shoppers-flee-panic-divided-jury-trial-deadlocked-mistrial

0

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago edited 11h ago

Great? The literal jury found that it wasn't self-defense so congrats. The ultimate verdict literally contradicts them being "divided". Genuinely why would the literal APPELATE JUDGE cite the verdict? Do you think he is just dumb? Doesn't know what he's talking about?

1

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 11h ago

You and the other down syndrome lawyer from earlier should hook up. Hold on I'll link you guys.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cringereels/s/iWeNJAuq7t

Go have fun pretending to understand law together.

1

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago

You've gotta be retarded dude. You're just pretending the court document doesn't say what it clearly does.

1

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago

I get being a literal baboon, but the Colie argued what you did to appeal the negligent discharge and was shot down with the jury verdict cited.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/GaibonAmduscias 15h ago

How does a corporate policy make something a law?

3

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 15h ago

I own a place. I say no guns.

You bring a gun. On my property. A weapon that is not allowed.

"How is that a crime?"

Normally under trespassing. "People WITHOUT GUNS are allowed here"

  • Goes on that area WITH GUN*

surprise Pikachu face

1

u/browni3141 10h ago

This is like criminally charging someone for violating a restaurant dress code. It should not be criminal. Some really stupid states like NY have tried to make it criminal.

1

u/angelbelle 10h ago

It's trespassing private property, why is this so hard to understand?

Are you in favor of people entering your property without permission?

1

u/browni3141 5h ago

Violating a rule is not trespassing. If I don't want someone on my property I have to inform them that they are trespassed. I can't pre-emptively trespass them because they came onto my property wearing sandals, while I require closed toe shoes.

It's unlikely anyway that a property owner would actually want to trespass someone for carrying onto their property. The sane response is to inform that it isn't allowed and proceed according to their response.

3

u/JackomaybeWacko 14h ago

Do you have that same question about trespassing? Or do you understand the concept of that?

2

u/It_Just_Exploded 14h ago

Its not just a policy thing. If you're a concealed weapon carrier, you need to understand property rights. A property owner or lease holder 100% has the right to legally bar your weapon from their property, and it is enforceable.

Its like posting "No loitering" and then getting caught loitering by police. Once a crime (even a minor one) is commited, that can change things moving forward. Like simple battery, say you and someone else are arguing, things are heated, and you slap or punch them. Thats a fairly minor charge on its own, but if the cops find a gun on you, well now shits serious. The fact you commited a crime (in this case a violent crime even if a minor one) while in possession of a firearm just opened up a shitstorm, even if you never pulled it or made it known you had it. If you don't have a good lawyer, you're absolutely fucked.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just trying my best to remember what i read in articles and saw in news clips back when this happened.

0

u/WhoSc3w3dDaP00ch 14h ago

Even with a good lawyer, still can be absolutely f-ed.

2

u/It_Just_Exploded 14h ago

No doubt, but without one its an absolute certainty.

0

u/MyEmbarrisingAccount 13h ago

I mean it makes sense to me. If you are carrying a fire arm you have an inherent responsibility to avoid violence because you know you're fairly safe with your trump card. If you then escalate the violence knowing that it could potentially lead to a life or death situation, as all violent situations have the potential to do, then you should be held accountable. It the equivalent knocking out an annoying small child and claim the child started it and you were justified in using full force.

2

u/usrdef 14h ago

Private property is treated very different from public property.

if I own property, I am allowed to set the rules however I see fit. I don't even have to respect your freedom of speech. If you say "I love the President" and I don't like that, I can ask you to leave. If you don't, I can trespass you. And if you still don't leave, you can be arrested.

Some churches also have rules about no firearms.

Social media sites like Reddit / Facebook, also don't have to respect your right to free speech. You can be banned for saying anything. It's not law, it's just policy on how private entities work.

Plus states have specific laws about people who conceal carry.

0

u/h3lium-balloon 13h ago edited 13h ago

Depends on the state really. Some states have laws that say private property owners can limit the legal ability to carry on their property by putting up a sign (it usually has to meet certain criteria) whereas some states say the any place open to the public isn’t allowed to restrict legal carry. Like many legal issues, know your local and state laws.

Edit: any private property open to the public to clarify.

0

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 13h ago

There are literally zero states without exceptions

0

None.

Not even the reddest state in the union will let you take your gun everywhere.

2

u/h3lium-balloon 13h ago

I didn’t say everywhere. I said some states let private property owners make the determination. I was answering a question about corporate policy and law.