Friendswood Police are investigating an armed robbery at a Walgreens store reported at 8:15 p.m. on Saturday evening, December 7, 2019.
A black male wearing a hoodie and bandana robbed the Walgreens located at 104 E. Parkwood Avenue. The suspect got cash from the register and forced an employee to open a safe.
An inbound customer was alerted to the in progress robbery, saw the suspect exit the Walgreens and fired his weapon at the suspect. It is unknown if the the suspect was hit, but it did cause the suspect to drop some of the stolen money in the Whataburger parking lot before he fled the scene in a Kia, possibly driven by a female.
Police will be interviewing witnesses and obtaining surveillance video from the store. This news story will be updated when more reliable, descriptive information is available.
I received this from Friendswood PD. It happened about two miles from my house.
Friendswood is south of Houston and is arguably the safest or one of the safest places in Texas (maybe because it votes 60 percent Republican). This just goes to show that there is no place safe. This is why I never leave hone without my EDC, even in “safe” Friendswood.
Revolver - An elegant weapon... for a more civilized age.
NRA Endowment Life Member
TSRA Life Member
My friends daughter was in the store when it happened. This is why I carry 24/7 although I doubt I would have fired at him (but then again there are not many details at this time so my opinion could change if I knew more about what happened ).
I couldn't find a thing. But when you search Friendswood robbery. Links pop up Robbery at Sonic, Robbery at Compass Bank, Etc. I guess no where is immune to crime.
I wonder if this is the same guy that robbed 4-5 pharmacies in Pasadena, shot at a father and son who tried to follow to alery police. He was released on PR by one of the liberal judges from the last election.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
puma guy wrote: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:29 pm
I wonder if this is the same guy that robbed 4-5 pharmacies in Pasadena, shot at a father and son who tried to follow to alery police. He was released on PR by one of the liberal judges from the last election.
On the way to church I was telling my wife that I wonder if the guy threatened the customers on the way out thus prompting the shooting. What idiot robs a Walgreens? It said he got into the safe but how ugh would he really get from a Walgreens considering many transactions are electronic. I know they have to keep cash on hand but I am sure it would be minimal but I am also sure that most criminals are not very smart.
The text of the email appears as a post on Friendswood city facebook page. I don't seem to be able to get a link directly to it, but if you want to read it, find Friendwood City on FB.
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
Safety Ministry Director, First Baptist Church Elgin
NRA, NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor, Rangemaster Certified, GOA, TSRA, NAR L1
I can't help but to wonder: The quote states that the shooter saw the actor exit the Walgreens and then the shooter fired his weapon. So, was the robbery over as the actor exited? If so, that may not be considered a good shoot.
Caliber wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:20 pm
I can't help but to wonder: The quote states that the shooter saw the actor exit the Walgreens and then the shooter fired his weapon. So, was the robbery over as the actor exited? If so, that may not be considered a good shoot.
I'm NOT saying I would have fired at an armed robber as I don't know the circumstances. For example, do the facts show intervention would have been 1) self-defense under TPC §§9.31 & 9.32; 2) defense of a 3rd person under TPC §9.33 or a property crime under §§9.41 et seq. However, assuming self-defense and defense of a 3rd person were not an issue, the relevant property-related Penal Code sections are copied below. (TPC §9.32(a)(2)(B) could be implicated, but I'm not going into that at this time.)
Chas.
Tex. Penal Code wrote:PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
The police account is very brief, certainly not all the relevant (to legality) details.
It may be that the robber turned towards and/or pointed, or looked like he pointed, his gun at the intervenor. And/or the robber may have been "exiting" more or less directly towards the intervenor.
