Nearby officers heard gunshots before finding a wounded driver on the ground and an armed customer at the scene, police said.
MARANA, Ariz. — Police had been sent to an In-N-Out Burger to check on a driver who had remained stopped in the drive-thru when officers working another case nearby heard gunfire and rushed over, arriving to find the driver wounded and another man pointing a firearm at him, authorities said.
The Sept. 28 encounter developed with police already on their way. Marana officers were dispatched at about 2:52 p.m. to the restaurant at 8180 N. Cortaro Road for a welfare check, according to the Police Department. Other officers in the area were handling an unrelated incident when they heard several shots from the direction of the restaurant. They responded immediately. Police said they found a male victim suffering from a gunshot wound and Charles Whipple, 55, pointing a gun at the victim as he lay on the ground near his vehicle.
Officers detained Whipple without incident, then provided first aid to the wounded man. The victim was taken to a hospital, where his injuries were described as not life-threatening. The rapid police arrival captured only the final stage of a confrontation that investigators later reconstructed through surveillance video and witness interviews. According to that reconstruction, the episode began with a stationary car, an apparently sleeping driver and concern among restaurant employees about his condition.
The victim’s vehicle had been stopped in the drive-thru lane for an extended period, police said. Local reporting based on an interim complaint said an employee went to the car and found the driver asleep. Whipple was waiting about two cars behind the vehicle. He eventually approached the situation himself. Reports describing his statement to police say Whipple claimed he could smell alcohol coming from the other man or his vehicle. Authorities have not publicly confirmed in the sources reviewed that the driver was intoxicated, and the victim has not been publicly identified.
The employee’s effort appears to have remained focused on delaying the driver until authorities could respond. According to Arizona’s Family, the worker told investigators that she was trying to stall him while police were called. Whipple later told investigators that he heard an employee say something similar to “we can’t let him leave.” The same employee said Whipple told her to back away because he did not want her to get hurt, according to reports of the interim complaint. No source reviewed says an employee asked Whipple to fire a weapon or physically detain the driver.
The driver moved forward through the drive-thru, but police said he stopped again. Whipple then crossed the parking lot toward the end of the lane. When the vehicle began moving through the parking lot, authorities say Whipple fired three rounds toward the driver’s side window. One bullet or a fragment of one struck the driver. The Police Department’s public account does not identify the precise nature of the wound, and officials described it only as non-life-threatening.
Investigators later focused on the vehicle’s movement and Whipple’s position at the time of the shooting. Local reports citing the complaint said the surveillance video showed the vehicle moving slowly. Investigators also said Whipple was not directly in front of the car and was not in immediate danger from it when he fired. Those observations form part of the factual basis presented by authorities as Whipple faces allegations of attempted homicide in the second degree and endangerment. He has not been convicted of those charges.
After the shots, the driver stopped. Police said Whipple approached him, ordered him out at gunpoint and instructed him to lie on the ground. The wounded man remained there until officers reached the scene moments later. That is the scene authorities say responding officers encountered: the injured driver down near his car and Whipple holding a firearm on him. Police did not report a struggle when they detained Whipple.
The timing of the police response is central to the case’s unusual sequence. The original call was not described as a report of a shooting, assault or armed confrontation. It was a welfare check connected to a vehicle that had not been moving normally through a fast-food line. Before the dispatched officers could complete that check, nearby police heard shots themselves. By the time they arrived, the matter had changed into a violent-crime investigation involving a wounded driver and a weapon.
Witnesses and video then gave detectives a way to work backward from what officers had seen. Police said their investigation established that Whipple first approached the stopped vehicle while it was still in or near the drive-thru and later moved across the lot as the driver proceeded. The reports also place restaurant employees in the middle of an unfolding situation they had initially tried to handle by waking the driver and contacting authorities. At least one employee was close enough to Whipple for him to warn her to move away before the shooting, according to the reported complaint.
Authorities also cited the presence of other customers in assessing the incident. Arizona’s Family reported that the restaurant patio had multiple patrons on it, including small children, when the shots were fired. No bystander was reported injured. Whipple was booked on an endangerment allegation in addition to the attempted homicide count. The precise theory prosecutors would present on that charge was not detailed in the publicly available reports reviewed for this article.
At an initial court appearance, Whipple said he was a U.S. Navy veteran and former police officer, local outlets reported. A judge set bond at $150,000. The Arizona Daily Star later reported that a preliminary hearing was tentatively scheduled for Oct. 9. Public reports reviewed through Nov. 10 did not establish a final outcome in the case, so Whipple’s legal status should not be described as resolved on the basis of the early arrest reports alone.
The driver’s status also remains only partly public. Police said his injuries were not expected to be life-threatening, but the available sources do not provide a detailed medical update. They also do not say whether investigators substantiated Whipple’s claim that he smelled alcohol or whether the driver faced any separate charge. The original welfare check and concern over possible impairment therefore remain distinct from the criminal accusations stemming from the gunfire.
That distinction is important to the chronology investigators released. Whatever concern existed about the sleeping driver, police say the later shooting was captured and assessed on its own facts. Their account says Whipple was outside the vehicle’s path, that the vehicle was moving slowly and that he fired three rounds toward the driver’s side. Those allegations will be subject to the criminal process, where the state bears the burden of proving any charged offense and Whipple remains presumed innocent.
What began as a call to check on an unresponsive driver ended with one man hospitalized and another taken into custody before the responding welfare check could be completed. Police have not publicly identified the injured driver in the reviewed reports, and the available record does not establish how the criminal case against Whipple was ultimately resolved.
Author note: Last updated Nov. 10, 2026.