Home Invasion Ends In Exchange Of Gunfire

Bob Irwin highlights the latest self defense and other shootings of the week. Read them and see what went wrong, what went right and what we can learn from self defense with a gun.

Gang Members Thugs Robbers Muggers Home Invasion
Home Invasion Ends In Exchange Of Gunfire
Bob Irwin
Bob Irwin

USA –-(Ammoland.com)- WKRN TV 2 in Nashville reports 03-25-2017 in Springfield, Tennessee, police are investigating after a home invasion ended in an exchange of gunfire between the homeowner and the suspects early Saturday morning.

The incident happened in the 800 block of Kings Lane around 2 a.m. Springfield police reported three young men entered the residence with guns drawn and began demanding money from the homeowner.

The homeowner pulled out his 9mm semi-automatic handgun and fired one round at the suspects.

The three turned and fled from the home. One of them fired a return shot at the homeowner, striking him in the hand.

He was transported to Northcrest Medical Center for treatment of minor injuries.

The suspects were described as between the ages of 18 to 20 years old and all were wearing bandanas.


A three man home invasion team, this time clearly armed. An absolutely valid self-defense case. It is fairly common for fleeing criminals to fire back at the victim to discourage pursuit.

As the suspects flee, it’s wise to use cover while dialing 911 and stay there until they are completely gone. It’s hard to completely recover from a shot in the hand and obviously that could have been a whole lot worse.

Winning gunfights is not getting hit!

Bob Irwin, The Gun Store, Las Vegas

About Bob Irwin

The writer is the owner of The Gun Store in Las Vegas and has a gun talk radio show “Fired Up with Bob Irwin” Firedup is now on KSHP 1400 am radio from 9 to 10 pm on Thursdays and also on YouTube “Fired Up with Bob Irwin.

  • 12 thoughts on “Home Invasion Ends In Exchange Of Gunfire

    1. Three armed guys? Maybe the victim’s adrenaline was pumping so fast he didn’t even realize he fired the shot he did. We all would react differently in such a stressful situation. Ya can’t second guess the victim’s actions unless it has happened to you. Heck, maybe some of us would just sit there and wet our pants.

    2. The law being what it is this guy should have fired more ,they were clearly ready to shoot him and once inside the house all bets are off, that’s part of the problem now days we give the a-hole criminals more rights than the people they are violating , this needs to be corrected, for example if one had tripped and injured himself then he could sue them , what world did this distored law come from ,should be if you enter someones residents bearing arms you should have lost your rights. It’s about time to put the law where it’s suppose to be, on the side of the potential victim not the criminal

    3. He fired as many rounds as were needed. We should be hesitant to judge based on minimal facts. I’d say he did as well as needed. We also don’t know how soon into the fight his hand was injured and which hand it was.
      As a law abiding citizen your authority to use deadly force ends the second the threat ends. If they immediately started running out of his home further shots might be unlawful and be grounds for prosecution. I’m not agreeing with that but that is the way it is right now.
      Furthermore we are not the Police, we have no authority to pursue and capture these losers and given three to one odds such pursuit is unwise at best.
      That said I wouldn’t shed one tear if he’d sent all three “home” for good.

      1. If the invaders are shooting back while running away, return gunfire is legal in most states. Certainly in a State where Castle Doctrine law of some sort is the law, Tennessee has a form of Castle Law by way of statute and court decisions.
        If you have to shoot, shoot accurately and fast.

      2. How many times has someone been dispatched by a fleeing felon throwing back one or two random shots? I am of the opinion he should have kept firing, the shot that hit his hand might well have hit him in the head. Just luck kept him from going to the morgue.

        1. The laws that cover Use of Force are similar from State to State, but details vary.
          Kansas amended the State law and it is now among the very best. Quoting
          21-5222. Use of force in defense of a person. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3211]
          (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it
          appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to
          defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
          (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in
          subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to
          prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
          (c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to
          protect such person or a third person.
          21-5221. Use of force; definitions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3221]
          (a) As used in article 32 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments
          (1) “Use of force” means any or all of the following directed at or upon another person or
          (A) Words or actions that reasonably convey the threat of force, including threats to
          cause death or great bodily harm to a person;
          (B) the presentation or display of the means of force; or
          (C) the application of physical force, including by a weapon or through the actions of
          (2) “Use of deadly force” means the application of any physical force described in
          paragraph (1) which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to a person. Any threat to cause
          death or great bodily harm, including, but not limited to, by the display or production of a
          weapon, shall not constitute use of deadly force, so long as the actor’s purpose is limited to
          creating an apprehension that the actor will, if necessary, use deadly force in defense of such
          actor or another or to affect a lawful arrest.
          (b) An actor who threatens deadly force as described in subsection (a)(1) shall be subject
          to the determination in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 21- 5222, and amendments thereto, and not to
          the determination in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-5222, and amendments thereto.
          History: L. 2010, ch. 124, § 1; April 29.

          In some States following Kansas law will get you prison time.

      3. had he shot more rounds maybe the little bastards would think twice before trying that again

        1. or maybe not have ben capable of thinking at all? Now it appears they are free to go find their next victim. Sad….

      4. proof the threat had NOT been stopped came with that parting shot, the one that hit him in the hand. How far can a handgun reach with a round fired? That far? Until the perps are beyond that range, they remain a threat.

    4. Three armed men, armed, age immaterial, should be shot and at least wounded so the police can get them at a hospital.
      Resident should shoot fast and often and take cover or at least crouch.
      Maybe this man’s 9mm jammed, but as long as THEY are still present and armed they are a threat.

    5. Hitting what you are shooting at is prerequisite to not getting hit by return fire. 3 bad guys and only one shot? His 9mm should have had at least 9 rounds in it and he left 8 rounds of security in his firearm. It only takes 3 to 4 seconds to fire those and no doubt they were still inside during that amount of time. He had no reason not to continue his defensive exchange with these individuals for his own safety.

    Comments are closed.