Incident Overview
On Wednesday, June 10, 2026, just after 4:15 p.m., the Kansas City Police Department responded to a shooting inside a convenience store in the 4300 block of The Paseo, near East 44th Street. The Kansas City Star identified the store as an Xpress Mart on Paseo Boulevard.
According to charging documents filed by the Jackson County Prosecutor and reported by KCTV5, a verbal altercation involving multiple people escalated into gunfire. Surveillance video showed two men, later charged, approaching the victim about an incident from earlier in the week. One man would not let the victim leave and grabbed him while holding a gun; the victim pulled away, drew a gun from his waistband and pointed it at the ground; the first man then raised and pointed his gun, the victim raised his, and both appeared to fire shots, per the charging account.
One adult man was shot inside the store and taken to a hospital in critical condition, where he later died. He was not named in the coverage reviewed.
The charging narrative itself raises an unresolved question of who escalated the deadly encounter and whether self-defense will be argued. The accounts below come from charging documents; the charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
A Life Lost
An adult man was killed in the shooting. He was not named in the coverage reviewed, and this report does not speculate about his identity or the dispute that preceded the gunfire. Out of respect for the victim and his family, only what has been publicly confirmed is described here. As more verified information becomes available, this page may be updated.
Two Men Charged
Timothy McClenton, 36, was charged with second-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon. His bond was set at $150,000 cash. According to charging documents, he left the store and called 911 from outside the KCPD Central Patrol Division.
Ed Gilliam, described as a convicted felon, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm; charging documents say he drew and pointed a gun during the confrontation but did not appear to fire. His bond was set at $10,000 cash. Both men were held in the Jackson County Jail.
The charges were announced by Jackson County Prosecutor Melesa Johnson. Charges are allegations, and both defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Location & Context
The shooting happened inside a convenience store in the 4300 block of The Paseo, near East 44th Street in Kansas City. The Kansas City Star identified the store as an Xpress Mart on Paseo Boulevard. As a convenience store, it is a cash-handling business with steady, largely uncontrolled public access during the day.
No prior violent incident at this specific store was documented in the coverage reviewed, and none should be assumed. A separate fatal shooting was reported in November 2025 at a different Xpress Mart, a Phillips 66 location at Gregory Boulevard and Prospect Avenue; that distinct incident is covered in a separate report and should not be confused with this one.
The charging account indicates the store had interior surveillance video, which prosecutors relied on to reconstruct the encounter. That points to a camera system being present, which is a security measure rather than a documented gap. No information on security staffing, lighting, or access control was reported.
Property Details
Property Type: Convenience store in the 4300 block of The Paseo near East 44th Street, identified by the Kansas City Star as an Xpress Mart on Paseo Boulevard.
Time of Incident: Just after 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, a weekday afternoon during business hours.
Surveillance Present: Interior surveillance video captured the encounter and was used by prosecutors to support the charges.
What Has Not Been Established
The victim was not named in the coverage reviewed.
The charging narrative describes both the victim and a defendant drawing and apparently firing; whether self-defense will be raised, and how the mutual-firing account is resolved, is unresolved.
No prior violent incident or call-for-service history at this specific store was documented in the coverage reviewed.
Beyond the presence of interior cameras, no information on security staffing, lighting, or access control was reported.
Convenience Store Security Standards
Convenience stores are widely recognized as elevated-risk retail environments because of cash handling and steady, open public access. Common loss-prevention and security guidance includes the measures below. This section describes general best practices for the property type. The reporting confirms interior cameras were present and does not establish what other measures were or were not in place.
Surveillance Systems
Interior and exterior cameras covering the counter, aisles, entrances, and parking area help deter crime and, as in this case, can be essential to reconstructing events for investigators.
Adequate Lighting
Well-lit interiors and exteriors support deterrence and give staff and cameras a clear view of activity in and around the store.
Clear Counter Sightlines
Layout and signage that preserve clear sightlines from the counter help employees see who enters and recognize a developing confrontation early.
Conflict De-escalation
Staff training to recognize escalating disputes and to contact 911 at the first signs of trouble can matter when a confrontation begins among customers inside the store.
Panic Buttons & Emergency Response
Silent alarms and panic buttons let employees alert authorities discreetly when a situation turns dangerous.
Cash Controls
Limited visible cash and drop safes reduce the incentive for robbery-related violence at cash-heavy stores.
Potential Negligent Security Considerations
Under Missouri's Business Premises Safety Act (RSMo 537.785 to 537.787), a business can owe a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable third-party crime when it knew or had reason to know that violent acts were reasonably likely. The factors below are open questions raised by the facts as reported; they are not findings, and Crime Victim Justice does not assert that any party is liable.
Several factors may warrant examination regarding this incident:
1 Prior Conflict and Foreseeability
The charging account says the dispute stemmed from an incident earlier in the week. Whether there had been prior conflict, disturbances, or calls for service connected to this store, and whether they made violence foreseeable, would require KCPD records that are not yet public.
2 Surveillance and Monitoring
The store had interior surveillance video that prosecutors used to build the case. Whether that footage was actively monitored in real time, and whether it met the standard expected for a convenience store in this setting, are open questions.
3 Intervention Inside the Store
An armed confrontation reportedly unfolded inside the store with the potential for other customers to be present. Whether any staffing, protocols, or measures existed to intervene or to get bystanders to safety is a factor premises liability analysis would examine.
4 Property-Type Risk Profile
Convenience stores are recognized as elevated-risk retail environments. Whether this location's specific history put the operator on notice of a heightened risk has not been established in the available reporting.
Missouri Premises Liability & Foreseeability
Missouri courts assess a business's duty to protect patrons from third-party crime largely through foreseeability and whether reasonable security measures were in place. Learn more in our guide to negligent security and our overview of gas station and convenience store security, and see broader context in the five-year property security analysis. Anyone affected by an incident like this can have the facts reviewed by an experienced negligent security attorney; the attorneys featured on this site offer free, confidential consultations.
A Note on Accuracy
This report is based on the Jackson County Prosecutor's release and KCTV5 and Kansas City Star coverage as of June 15, 2026. The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The victim was not named, the self-defense question raised by the charging narrative is unresolved, and no prior incident or security history at the store has been confirmed.
If you or a loved one was affected by a similar incident, the experienced negligent security attorneys featured on this site offer free, confidential consultations to help you understand your legal options.