Prosecutor Won’t File Charges In Deadly Fort Smith Mall Shooting

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Sebastian County Prosecutor Daniel Shue has decided not to file charges against a man involved in the deadly Fort Smith mall shooting that occurred on May 10, according to a statement released by his office Monday (May 19).

Shue states it is the opinion of his office that Grayson Herrera was justified in his use of deadly force at Central Mall against Fadi Qandil, who died from injuries suffered in the shooting.

“This is a justifiable homicide which does not merit the filing of criminal charges,” Shue states.

Fadi “Frankie” Qandil, 34, died from injuries sustained from multiple gunshot wounds to the upper torso in a parking lot between the Malco Theaters and JC Penney, said Sgt. Daniel Grubbs with the Fort Smith Police Department. 

Fort Smith police responded to a report of shots fired at the mall at 7:41 p.m. May 10.

Investigators said Qandil confronted his estranged wife, Tabitha Qandil, 31, Grayson Herrera, 23, and Dustin O’Conner, 27, as the three were headed to the movie theater.

“The victim raised his shirt and showed a weapon within his waistband, began to pull the weapon. The other two were concealed handgun weapon carriers, and they pulled their weapons,” Grubbs said. “And there was an exchange of gunfire.”

An off-duty officer was working security inside the Malco, and another off-duty officer was attending a movie, when both heard the shots and ran to the parking lot, Grubbs said. The officers were able to disarmed Herrera and O’Conner.

The main law that led to Shue’s decision not to file charges was Arkansas Code Annotate 5-2-607, which states:

“A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is: committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence or using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.”

Shue says in his statement, “Considering all circumstances, Herrera had a reasonable belief that Qandil was committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence (attempted murder or aggravated assault) and/or that Qandil was using unlawful deadly physical force upon Mr. Herrera or the other persons present at the scene.”

The statement continues, “It is clear from the investigation conducted that Herrera was lawfully exercising his rights under Arkansas law by defending himself and/or other persons when he took the action that resulted in the death of Qandil.”


    • Tammy Hallowell

      one thing kinda makes me go HMMmmmm. What is the astranged wife and her new boyfriend wanted him dead? what if they pulled first but the victim was just slower. If there is no other whitness and no camera footage, they got away with cold blooded murder.

      • zztopperman

        Not sure if either of the two doing the defensive shooting had any romantic connection to the woman. The fact still remains the deceased went there with a gun to confront his estranged wife. The report says the guy showed his weapon, which is something you are not supposed to do if you are licensed to carry concealed. That’s why they call it concealed. Seriously doubt the deceased was licensed to carry…just a hunch. At any rate, if he showed up to confront his estranged wife with a gun and flashed it or pulled it. Under those circumstances most anyone would assume he planned to use the weapon so as the prosecutor decided wisely,it was a justified shooting. Lucky for the three and possibly others in the parking lot the two that were firing defensively were quicker on the draw and or better marksmen!

    • T Bannister

      At least the have the opportunity to have the option of living. You sound as though them dying is a more pious option. Libtard logic.
      If it’s them or me, you can damn sure bet It will be them, if I can help it.

    • RC

      it was not in the mall, i have never ever saw signs that stated the mall was a gun free zone, or any signs that are on the mall property stating it is a gun free area, so therefore, if a person has a conceal carry, it is still their right to carry. when a threat is made upon another person, and the other person feels their life or others are in danger, it is within their rights to protect.

    • rob

      The mall is not posted by arkansas law it has to be posted at every entrance and the signs have to meet state requirments. Know the law before you quote them please or go take you coceal carry class and learn for yourself

      • zztopperman

        Of course, and murder was against the law too, but the bad guys apparently didn’t get that memo either! Liberals are so naive! If you don’t want to be a victim, you’ve got to stop acting like a victim and use your brain! You wouldn’t walk through a field of snakes barefooted,so why would anyone be so ignorant as to think putting up a sign that says “gun free zone” is going to keep them safe!

  • Jeff Stewart

    It means there was only one person dead instead of three. As sad as it is for anyone to die, it was the aggressor and not the victims. If Frankie hadn’t tried to brandish a weapon – no one would’ve died and we wouldn’t be talking about it. BTW – I hate guns.

  • Dave

    If he pulled his weapon and fired, every AMERICAN has the right to defend his/her self. Gun free zones???? Those are the places I avoid, I make a point of calling the business and letting them know why I will never patronize a business where one can’t defend his self.

    • zztopperman

      I also do my best not to patronize businesses that have gun free zones. Unfortunately my employer doesn’t allow guns where I work and I like my job so I comply with their zone. I suppose it’s merely to protect themselves from a lawsuit if a shooting ever occurs because surely they aren’t naive enough to think that would actually stop some fool from bringing a gun in and shooting up the place if he was so a mind. But I know what you mean and I believe I feel the same way you do about the ignorance of gun free zones. It would be great if everybody would comply, but of course we live in the real world,so it is never going to happen….never, not anywhere! Gun free zones clearly put good people at greater risk and have never stopped a bad guy!

    • JR

      Dave you sound like a coward and someone who only feels important carrying a gun around. I’m sure you feel real macho with your gun. Probably walk real tall with it. Probably never been in a fight like a real man. It does sound like this guy was looking for trouble and had but intentions, but we will never no exactly what happened because the other guy is dead. If anything this proves we don’t need a stand your ground law since both of these individuals were not charged.

      • Skylar

        JR, “Been in a fight like a real man”. Are you serious? A real man knows how to handle himself so that he doesnt have to get in a physical altercation. You sound like one of those cowards who thinks that if someone says something mean, you have the right to beat them up because you dont have the intelligence to walk away or defend yourself in kind. That being said, if these men didnt have their guns, there is a good chance one of them and/or that woman would be dead instead. Perhaps you should be smart enough to consider that the person you want to hit might be armed next time you want to “Fight like a real man”, and that they might just kill you for acting like a caveman.

      • zztopperman

        JR: real men avoid fights if at all possible. Smart men realize criminals don’t fight fair and so real men (and women) sometimes will go to the trouble of getting an FBI background check, getting fingerprinted,and take a gun safety/training course so they can be responsible enough to know how to protect themselves and those around them from idiots that would use deadly force to commit a crime! Using deadly force in self defense is not a crime and the prosecuting attorney scrutinizes cases like this to make sure the use of deadly force was justifiable ! Those of us that are licensed to carry hope and pray we never have to use our weapon! It’s taking another’s life if we have to, and that would be horrible! But worse is being gunned down by someone when you are un-armed or seeing a family member killed right before your eyes and not being able to do anything to try and prevent it! It has NOTHING to do with being “macho” as you like to think! It has everything to do with being prepared,being responsible, and not thinking like a victim! If you think it’s a macho thing or a power trip,and you think real men get in fights,then you probably are not responsible enough to even consider carrying. I suspect with your “macho-mentality” you probably are not able to legally purchase a firearm,or even own a gun much less would be able to pass the background check! I also suspect your fingerprints are already on file and that you have been arrested at least once for assault or domestic violence,and that was probably against a woman! You’d be the kind of nut-job that I’d expect to bring a gun to an argument! And btw…you don’t no something,you know it!

  • jennifer alise

    I think its funny that people who have no idea what really happened can say what happ.. seriously … if you were not there dont open your mouth like you know what happ.. if you have an opinion then keep it to that . Truth is w out Dustin n Grayson .. you all would have had dead bodies of tabitha and frank and prob grayson n dustin .. so who really is the bad guy ???? Before you run your mouth ..

  • Eck

    Frightening to think you can murder without a second thought
    Kids around. Please change the law legislators I am afraid to leave home because if I make the wrong gesture I will be dead and no one will ask what was she thinking when she went to scratch that little itch on her arm or leg or belly where oh where is common sense
    The dead person cannot tell his side of the story I would pray for them but I think God is disgusted with gun toting mankind

    • mrmakeitworse

      Well stay in your hen house. When your rooster has no spurs to protect you, you will meet your god and he will explain the rules of life to you. The devil was after the hen and the roosters had spurs that were faster. If you look on his facebook page he said he was gonna get life on that monday before it happend. He had a plan. Look it up stupid…

    • HL

      eck, This dead guy told his side of the story when he pulled his gun first, on the 3 innocent people.

    • Wake Up...

      I’m not even going to bother to comment on the stupidity you just typed. Simple enough, you have downs.

    • gary j


      I’m sure since it was a gun free zone, the ex-husband wouldn’t have went into the theatre with his gun. Maybe if the ex-wife had been wearing a gun free sign on her shirt, her ex would have left altogeher.

      Maybe…just Maybe, If those gun toting good samaritans had been in the Colorado movie theater, the could have prevented that massacre from the “Joker”.

      I would be willing to bet, that before I mortally wound someone in self defense with my concealed weapon, you will injure or kill someone with your car, while messing with your cell phone.


      • zztopperman

        I like what you said there. The last statement about the car and cell phone is spot on! These nut-jobs thinking people licensed to carry concealed are the problem are a lot more dangerous with their ignorance and probably don’t see any danger of texting while driving…..probably using their Obama-phones no less!

  • matt

    Eck please stay home, and don’t have anymore kids. This story highlights the need for CCW. You wont get shot if you don’t pose a threat. The thousands of CCW owners would never want to pull their weapon, I pray I never have to use mine, and I would never pull over an itch or a scratch. I pray for the shooters, and the victim. Despite your stereotype we don’t want to kill anyone, we just want to be able to protect our family and bystanders. Good on the shooters for center mass.

  • Daniel

    I know a few people are saying the dead guy didn’t get to tell his side of the story. Well every person in that parking lot at the time that saw it had the same story on what happened. I’m sure there was a lot of people around. Now for you to say that. You are calling every person present liars. The main thing here is that the dead guy didnt make it a mass shooting had these two not been there to shoot back. They are heroes in my book. Also i would like to point out that in the original story. It said police have had problems with him before over domestic violence. I’m sure he was probably a felon in possession of a firearm anyways. They are not supposed have them….

    • zztopperman

      Yes! When it is in self defense or in defense of another. What would you propose doing? Being a victim? Waiting for the cops to arrive (as you bleed out?) The cops, as good as they can be, can’t be there at every moment! They are usually minutes away,when seconds count! Be prepared or be a victim. It’s that simple.

  • zztopperman

    Some people are just not able to rationalize about anything. People that believe a sign will somehow make others safe are those kind of people. Common sense should tell us, a sign saying “gun-free zone” will never stop a person that is intending on killing someone from killing. How preposterous is it to think a person that has already decided to commit MURDER would suddenly cancel his plans to murder because of a sign? It’s delusional! It’s like make-believe, but we live in a real world! Anyone so naive as to think they are safer in a gun free zone obviously pays no attention to statistics! All but one of the mass shootings during the past 30 years have taken place in gun free zones! Why? Probably because the person planning to commit the crime feels safer committing his crime where he knows law abiding citizens are less likely to be packing a weapon. As for these two that were concealed weapon permit holders going to the movies where there was supposedly a gun-free zone sign….well, they would have been violating the law to be carrying if they had of made it inside with their weapons. So what? People violate the law everyday when they go 36 mph in a 35 mph zone. No harm,no foul! (Unless the police want to make a big deal out of it.) But think about this: people that go to the trouble of being finger printed and through a background check and through a concealed weapons training course certainly aren’t going to go to all that trouble just so they can go out to commit murder! THE ONLY REASON they go to that kind of trouble is because they aren’t delusional thinking a sign is going to keep them or those around them safe! If signs did that, cops wouldn’t need guns either and we would just have gun free zones everywhere! But people with brains realize bad people are out there. And they want to be able to do more than cower down if (God-forbid) some nut-job pulls out a weapon and starts shooting! They are smart enough to know a sign isn’t going to stop a killer! There’s a big difference in murder and self-defense! But anyone that is still so ignorant to think that a gun free zone sign would have stopped the guy that was killed from using his gun, is hopelessly delusional and will always depend on others for his or her own safety. Why don’t we just pass a law that says it’s against the law to kill people. That should solve everything! Oh wait. Get a brain people!

    • zztopperman

      Establishments that are gun free zones are not gun free. They do have the burden of providing armed security for their customers or workers,because a disgruntled person doesn’t give a rip about that sign when he or she decides to go kill someone. These establishments that don’t supply armed security put their customers and workers at greater risk with a gun free zone and open themselves up to lawsuits if a shooting ever occurs and someone is hurt or killed when their security was lacking. The person obviously has to make a choice whether to comply with the gun free zone sign whether he’s a worker or a customer. I understand his comment whether you do or not.

  • Marc Vanderbush

    I’m glad the dude isn’t gonna be charged.. this is the perfect example of a person being able to carry to defend themselves. I don’t know the story not for either side. But I think it’s safe to say that if they weren’t carrying then there would be atleast one innocent persons dead but more than likely three.. I almost took my wife and son to the movies that night but I decided not to. Good thing I guess.. I wish I was able to Carry but when I was 18 I was charged with a non violent felony. And now I have lost my rights. I wishthey would aallow me to get my license since I have changed my ways and done good for the last decade.. I just want to be able to have a gun legally in my home to protect my family from idiot that overrun our world

  • Mark Smith

    I see 5NEWS blocks responses, especially those critical of the writers and intelligence level of the community. Arkansas proves it’s 48th in the US of a in Education
    Crack a book!

    • zztopperman

      Trash 5 News all you want but I take it personally when you start trashing the whole state! I could critique your post as well since you seem to be wanting to critique others for not being as smart as you think you are….but I think you’ve probably already seen your mistakes! I’ve seen a lot of PhD’s that have plenty of “cracked books” and were tops in their class that are still “dumber than a box of rocks” ! And if you aren’t born here it really burns me up when outsiders trash our state!

  • howtocarryconcealed

    This story is exactly why we take self-defense into our own hands and choose to carry concealed.

    Anyone who carries must be prepared to take a life if necessary–if you are not, then please do not carry.

    Being “right” and having a permit doesn’t mean that in the event of a shooting that you will not be disarmed by police, possibly arrested and even tried on charges. Fortunately in this case the system worked!

Comments are closed.