Victim in YouTube Mall Prank Shooting

Appreciate the article, now, how about the 137 pages of small print? Every law firm in the world has them! My wife was a medical paralegal 40+ years. There’s fine print for the fine print.
Then there’s the invisible print that you’ll only hear about when it’s too late!

1 Like

I’m curious how you weighed the potential for a misdemeanor charge or civil liability when coming up with that ranking, as well as bail bond amounts.

If indeed the coverage was denied (I am not 100% sure this is a fact), what did the driver do wrong? He did not plead guilty. The jury sided with him on self defense, and the other charge is insane (what, is he supposed to stab the guy pursuing him, but not shoot him indoors?), and it is being appealed.

Was he found guilty in the court of insurance? USCCA training does not mention such court exists.

Another thing to ponder… Some suggested the driver would kick the harasser in the nuts, or punch him. Suppose this doesn’t deescalate things, and now 4 a-holes (I understand there were 4 of them recording) get physical. The driver threw the 1st punch - any use of weapon now leads him to prison. Tell me I am wrong in my analysis.

Is it self defense yes or no?

If it wasn’t self defense - no coverage by USCCA.

1 Like

Okay, you’re wrong. I aim to please. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::crazy_face:

1 Like

I asked a friend who is a criminal defense attorney and he said that “in addition to the use of firearms, felony charges can arise out of the use of one’s fists, a bat, or a knife. Generally speaking, in many states, merely using a bat or a knife to commit a simple assault will result in felony charges. Using fists to commit an assault that results in a serious physical injury often results in a felony charge as well.” That being said, if I have to use my gun, fists, bat, etc in self defense, I am confident I will be covered.

With civil liability, I understand that AOR doesn’t have it because they are not insurance-backed…they do offer civil defense coverage. That said, I will assume the risk that hopefully, with their civil defense, there won’t be a civil liability case…remember, while USCCA, US LawShield, etc say they offer civil coverage, coverage ends if a conviction results from any charge (play YouTube clip of Tom Grieve here LOL).

With bail amounts. I am fine AOR covering $10k out of a 100k bond value. Yes, I know it’s not a lot, but I have to remind myself that they are not insurance. I also spoke to one of their reps and they said they are looking at increasing their bail amount to $25k for a 250k bond in the near future.

I put ACLDN with AOR because they too are not insurance with very few exclusions to help members.

Like I said, I’ve spent hours researching all of my options and there really isn’t the perfect plan out there, but I think I’ll take my chances going with a law firm than with an insurance company any day…

this law firm has only 9 pages LOL

1 Like

There were several charges brought on him, but the Jury thought it was self-defense and found him not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding…BUT, he was found guilty of firing a gun inside the mall. Hence him still being in jail.

Nobody knows why, but the fact of the matter is, he was/is USCCA member and called them after the shooting and now he is being represented by a public defender.

1 Like

Yes, felony charges “can” arrise out of such things.

So can misdemeanors. Misdemeanors can be a big enough deal that me, personally, I’d want something there.

The vast majority of assault/battery cases do not rise to the level of lethal force. FBI UCR year over year shows us this definitively.

Each our own decision in the end.


Yes sir. Agreed. Our own decision

1 Like

What is interesting is that the Public defender obviously must have done a decent job of sorts. And he is trying to appeal the single conviction. I do not like contradictory rulings. The shoot was good…but where he shot was bad… it feels like to me the jury was splitting the difference.


Mr. Colie was never in any danger from Mr. Cook and used deadly force in a situation that did not call for it. Harassment via cell phone is not a deadly force threat. Mr. Colie should have just ignored and walked away from Mr. Cook. Mr. Colie committed a crime and USCCA and its insurance affiliates cannot insure crimes as a matter of law. USCCA exist to defend reasonable and lawful acts of self-defense. Mr. Victor and his law partner Mr. Marcantel know this to be the case but are exploiting this case in an effort to compete with USCCA for clients and subscribers for their Attorneys on Retainer Program.


So he was found not guilty of defending himself, but found guilty of discharging a firearm in a mall to defend himself? How on earth does THAT make sense? When WOULD it be legal to discharge a firearm in a mall then?


I agree that it did not call for deadly force in my opinion, but worthless POS Mr. Cook needs to grow up and get a life and a real job! If you recall in the video, Mr. Colie did make attempts to get out of the situation, but the instigator(Mr. Cook) kept towering over him following him with the phone in his face. Maybe this will wake up some of the dumbshit YouTubers out there…


Are you kidding, they will up the ante.


But the jury said he was innocent! Who is the USCCA to decide guilt or innocence? You are making a presumption before the trial begins to lower costs! True legal representation doesn’t look at what might be decided. True legal representation defends their client to the end of the trial.


The Jury did convict him of a crime, for what it’s worth

It is an oddity, and I am waiting to see how the appeal goes, with interest, because guilty on the discharge but not guilty on the others just doesn’t make sense. It’s also clearly appealable because last article I saw is that his lawyer is appealing


Well, look at the facts and evidence on the video. Did Colie act lawfully and reasonably? No, he didn’t. USCCA looked at the evidence and made the correct and reasonable decision before the trial began. The jury failed to do that and got the verdict wrong. USCCA has the legal right to do that. In fact, all other self-defense insurance organization plans have the same right to do that. Please read your USCCA services contract. Had Mr. Colie availed himself of USCCA’s training and education on how to engage in self-defense situation scenarios, he would not have been in the situation that he is now in. We are not just paying for legal representation and liability insurance but are also paying for education and training. USCCA puts us in a position to be proactive and not reactive via education and training. Mr. Colie was reactive and not proactive.


Is the standard here, if USCCA does not cover it then obviously it is because they are guilty? Oh Kayla was found guilty of course she did not deserve coverage. Then we have someone who had USSCA, and with the help of a Public Defender was found not guilty of actual self defense incident., But of course he does not deserve coverage. Obviously he did not act reasonably, and should not have been covered. And disregard the jury results they must have got it wrong.

No situation is going to be perfect. Remember he was only charged with a crime, not convicted of the most serious parts. People love to preach about how being charged is different from being guilty.
You cannot look at all these situations the same. It seems like people are soo emotionally attached to USCCA to the point of defending it no matter what. And I am a fan of the USCCA. My concern is not directed to USCCA or Delta, its towards UFCIC

1 Like