Sunday, June 29, 2014

Walmart Shooting: Arizona Man, Kyle Wayne Quadlin, Fatally Shoots Customer In Self-Defense

Arizona police said a man who fatally shot another man inside of a Walmart on Sunday was acting in self-defense. (Photo : Reuters)


According to authorities in Arizona, a man who fatally shot another man inside of a suburban Phoenix Walmart on Sunday was acting in self-defense.
Kyle Wayne Quadlin, 25, opened fire at Kriston Charles Belinte Chee, 36, following an argument at a service counter. Investigators who looked into surveillance footage from the incident said both men were fighting before the shooting occurred. 
"Mr. Quadlin was losing the fight and indicated he 'was in fear for his life,' so he pulled his gun and shot Mr. Belinte Chee," police said in a statement. 
After the shooting, Quadlin remained at the Walmart for a short while and then fled from the scene. Authorities were able to locate him after family members called police to report where he was. 
Though Quadlin has not been booked in the case, investigators will send their investigation for review by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.


  1. Gee I wonder when WalMart is going to ban guns? After lawsuits? After a few dead? After customers stop going there because they fear for their lives? How many arguments are there in WalMart stores worldwide everyday? That will add up to quite a few deaths.

    1. Anon, like most business venues, Walmart goes with local laws to determine who may carry in their stores. You should check out Baldr's Walmart shootings page. He lists all of these incidents that occur without any thought as to the circumstances and somehow believes that Walmart is responsible for them.
      In fact, last year going by Baldr's reckoning, it was Walmarts fault that an Oklahoma State Trooper shot and killed a man who attempted to abduct a child in the parking lot at knife point.

      Of course, my personal feeling is the hope that the trooper got a commendation for shooting him.

    2. Tell me something I don't know. They should ban all weapons in all their stores. Try responding to the questions I asked.

    3. Yes, although there are examples of proper gun use in Walmart's, the incidents of misuse for outnumber them.

      I'm not sure if it's right that Baldr blames Walmart alone. I'm sure he agrees with me that it's the idiot gun owners who are primarily responsible.

    4. Ok Anon, lets answer all of those questions you asked.

      "Gee I wonder when WalMart is going to ban guns?"

      Likely not anytime soon. The one group that has been pressuring businesses to ban permit holders from carrying in their venues really hasn't had a whole lot of success. Especially since those that lawfully carry firearms for self defense are notably more law abiding than the general public.

      "After lawsuits?"

      Lawsuit for what? Pretty much all of the events Baldr lists involve either people unlawfully carrying or the police. He even lists people robbing Walmart at gunpoint. How does suing Walmart for being the victim of a crime make sense?

      "After a few dead? After customers stop going there because they fear for their lives? How many arguments are there in WalMart stores worldwide everyday? That will add up to quite a few deaths."

      These questions sort of go together. Walmart currently has just under 5,000 retail stores in the US. Walmart banning lawfully carried firearms would have very little impact. Baldr's site lists three shootings by permit holders this year so far. One of which was justifiable self defense, it being the shooting listed above.
      Keep in mind that Baldr blames Walmart for crimes that also happen in their parking lot. Not sure how a sign will affect that. In fact, businesses cant legally ban legally carried guns in their parking lots in Minnesota. That is part of the states carry permit law.

    5. He seems to imply it pretty well Mike.

      "Why are there so many? Is it just because there are a LOT of Walmart locations around the country? And yet, other than one or two sporadic reports, you don't hear about so many shootings at Kmart stores, or Target, or Costco. Is it because Walmart sells guns and ammo, and those others don't? As far as I can tell, Target never did. Kmart stopped selling guns and ammo in 2009. Costco in 2006. It doesn't help that Walmart often has banks inside their stores, making them even more of a target.
      Is Walmart's pro-gun stance a factor? Does it make people feel justified in taking their guns to Walmart and settling disputes in a violent manner?"

      And then of course there is his signature statement at the end of each post,

      "Walmart. Save money. Die faster."

    6. You want to make this about Baldr, not gun safety in Wal Mart.
      Did you read that Target has now banned guns in all their stores around the world? Gee, I'm so far off. Meanwhile we still get stories almost daily about gun abuses inside Wal Mart stores. The tide is turning on you gun loons and just like Republican politicians you are bringing out the absurd, crazy explanations. Good luck with that.

    7. Target today, WalMart tomorrow.

      The message is clear. The biggest chain stores in the US are asking their customers to leave the guns at home. Reasonable people already do that. Those who resist are a tiny minority of the overall.

    8. "Did you read that Target has now banned guns in all their stores around the world?"

      Actually it appears that isn't accurate Anon. Target's corporate headquarters is in Minnesota, so its local news. This is also what they said,

      "Still, Target won’t post signs at its doors asking customers not to bring guns inside, said Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman.
      “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.”

    9. So just like Starbucks you won't comply. Why, because the statement did not come from Minneapolis? Maybe wherever the statement comes from they had the authority to make it, or do you think there is some conspiracy withing Target Corp. to overtake corporate headquarters. It was the CEO of Target who made the statement. Your irrational fear has made you a bad guest, or maybe you are just one of those ass holes who refuse to follow the rules.

    10. ss, you're conveniently leaving out the other part of their statement.

  2. Mike, is there a new development in this story I'm not seeing? We discussed this event back in February. The police had just about every tool available to determine whether it was justifiable self defense. They have the person who defended himself, physical evidence, eye witnesses, and even video footage that Laci feels can solve or prevent crimes all by itself.
    In this case Laci seems to be correct. It did most likely prove instrumental in solving a crime. It showed Chee assaulting Quadlin and then being killed in justifiable self defense. And it prevented someone from being wrongfully charged which is just as important as catching the criminal.

    1. Gun shootings and abuses continue to happen in their stores. If there was no gun present, no one would be dead. The fact that you think any altercation must end up with someone dead, because it is justifiable just shows your gun loon thinking.

    2. You're right ss. But this story speaks to the futility of carrying a gun. Far from being polite and non-confrontational, many gun carriers are encouraged by the fact that they are armed and with all the talk about stand you're ground, many of them don't back down and walk away while there's still time.

      This case is a perfect example of how the presence of a gun made an everyday situation turn into an unnecessary death.

    3. Regardless of the determination of the authorities, I say the real criminal here is the guy with the gun who rather than backing down and walking away while he could have, felt so empowered by the fact that he had a gun if the argument turned against him, not to mention all the talk about standing your're ground against scumbags, that he did the manly thing and didn't give an inch. Most of these cases of justified shootings would not have reached the level of violence required to justify the shooting had there been no gun there in the first place.

    4. "The fact that you think any altercation must end up with someone dead, because it is justifiable just shows your gun loon thinking. "

      Anon, I don't believe that and obviously it doesn't happen in real life. There are millions of permit holders out there. If they shot someone over "any" altercation, the numbers might be a bit higher. But there is documented evidence that permit holders are much more law abiding than the general public.
      This shooting was extensively investigated and determined to be justifiable self defense by the police.

    5. The loose gun laws you support encourages shooting rather than not shooting. Justifiable, but unnecessary. Unless you are a gun loon who thinks everyday disagreements should be settled by killing with a gun.

    6. Anonymous is exactly right.

    7. "Justifiable, but unnecessary."

      "Anonymous is exactly right."

      Yes, you seem to think its perfectly ok to expect someone to take a severe beating and if the victim isn't big enough, or doesn't have enough friends to help him, that's their tough luck.

    8. "Severe beating"?
      The guy asked a question and instantly the gun comes out. The fact that you think that's ok shows you are more than a gun loon, but obviously a violent person who thinks solving any problem means using violence. The fact that you have to lie about some imaginary "severe beating" shows the deceit you use making a false point.

    9. "The guy asked a question and instantly the gun comes out. "

      Anon, do you have some source that suggests that? If so, I'm sure everyone would love to see it. Perhaps you'd be willing to share it with everyone. Again, if it was anything other than justifiable self defense, the evidence would have shown it. There were witnesses, physical evidence, and a video of the event, and police said it was justified.

    10. It's not that I expect anyone to take a severe beating, what I expect is that people avoid the argument in the first place, or that they extricate themselves from it when it gets heated, or that the fucking run away. Anything is better than going into the situation with a gun, standing your ground and then killing someone.

    11. Where's your source for saying "severe beating?"
      A fight will only get as bad as the weapons available to the combatants.
      Yes, I also blame WalMart. If they are going to allow deadly weapons in their stores, they need armed security with orders to shoot anyone using a gun in an aggressive manner. It's not their job to decide self defense issues, but to stop anyone prepared to shoot one of their customers.

    12. "Where's your source for saying "severe beating?"

      The fact that he wasn't charged is a pretty good indication. Here is how the State of Arizona describes its deadly force law,

      "One would be justified in threatening or using physical
      force against another person when and to the extent a
      reasonable person in that position would believe that
      physical force is immediately necessary to protect oneself
      against the other person's use or attempted use of unlawful
      physical force. (A.R.S. § 13-404) . One would be justified
      in using deadly physical force when a reasonable person
      in that position would believe that deadly physical force is
      immediately necessary to protect oneself against the other
      person's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical
      force. (A.R.S. § 13-405).
      It is important to understand that the law permits a
      measured self-defense. Generally, one can only use the
      force necessary to resist the unlawful force. One can resist
      unlawful physical force with physical force. One can
      resist unlawful deadly force with deadly force."

      "One cannot provoke a fight and then act in self-defense,
      unless (a) he first withdraws from the fight or clearly
      communicate his intent to withdraw, but reasonably believes
      he cannot safely withdraw, and (b) the other person
      nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical
      or deadly force against him. A.R.S. § 13-404(B)(3)(a) & (b)."

      The document also has some pretty good situational examples making the intent of the law more understandable.

    13. That has nothing to do with proving he took a "severe beating", your words. But thanks for trying to confuse the issue and not answering the question. A tactic you are well known for.

    14. Anonymous is right. Also, the situation brings up another sticking point. How do you know if you're about to receive a severe beating or just a slap in the face? Answer: you don't. So, as long as you have your trusty fetish item, you can shoot first and sort it out later, by which time you're certain you were in fear for your life or at least a severe beating.

  3. Your NRA is the cause of this. You get into an argument with some other idiot. Since you have a gun, you think "a little force is OK". You start losing, and you pull the gun and shoot him. The NRA has convinced you that this is fine.

    This is the future. You want to speed up the line, shoot people. You think someone is looking at you funny, shoot them. You think some guy is gay-hitting on you, shoot them.

    The NRA has created this climate of insanity.