KOCO-El-Reno-woman-says-she-shot-would-be-home-intruder-in-backside---img

I can’t decide which is more impressive – that Cathy Kouba’s son gave her a shotgun for Mother’s Day or the fact that she appreciated the gift. Either way, it came in mighty handy the other night when the El Reno, Oklahoma mom awoke to the sound of her alarm wailing. “I have a daughter that’s handicapped and she was asleep on the bottom floor. And so for the fear of her being hurt, motherly instincts kick in and, you know, I worked hard for what I’ve got. And you’re not going to come and take it away from me.” Hooah! Only one problem. She didn’t get a shot off until the invader had turned tail and headed for the hills . . .

More from koco.com:

“[I cocked the gun], saw that the door had broke down, then I saw him hitting over the fence and head to the creek,” Kouba said.

Kouba said she fired and thinks she hit him in his backside. Adding insult to injury, the intruder got tangled in her electric fence before escaping.

Kouba apparently connected because the electrified dood – who’s still on the run – sprinkled some hemoglobin on his way off the property. We wouldn’t recommend sending buckshot toward a fleeing suspect no matter how protective you are. Then again, a single mom in small-town Oklahoma probably doesn’t have to worry about being charged in a case like this. The moral of the story: just as in the wild, don’t surprise a momma bear who’s protecting a cub.

Recommended For You

53 Responses to Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Maternal Deterrence Edition

  1. The most dangerous place has always been between momma bear and her cub(s).

    Especially when momma bear has a shotgun — and a willingness to use it.

  2. No prosecutor in their right mind, in OK, will press charges against a single mother of a disabled child whose house was broken into.

    • I live in Oklahoma, and happen to know that El Reno is in Canadian County, Oklahoma, one of the most heavily republican counties in the reddest state. She won’t face the slightest trouble from authorities there. Especially on this election year

  3. Firing after the goblin fled may not be text book. But now all goblin wannabees know to leave this woman and hers alone. A very strong message was sent.

      • well, he is has probably decided against that course of action by now. I mean, getting shot in the @$$ and tangled in the electric fence would test the determination of anyone I know.

  4. This didn’t happen. Couldn’t happen. Shannon said so. . . . .

    You mean, The Monsanto Mommy lied????

    Btw, there is a federal prison in el Reno so everyone should have something for just in case

  5. Made my day story!!!!

    In a previous life, I was the “hold my beer and watch this” guy. Once those escapades involved an electrified cattle fence affectionately called a “Stud Stopper”.

    It ended badly, but having a buckshot peppering after getting zapped? He’s got me beat, and almost earned Darwin Award.

    • Looks like a standard 5 round tube mag under it. Take that birdcage dingus off the muzzle and I’ll bet it’s a factory standard 18 inch tube.

      The only place I see that’s appropriate for a stockless shotgun is at inside the house ranges. I’d still prefer a butt stock.

      • I’m working on a home defense leaning 870 project, and I’m going to go with a M-4 style collapsible stock. It keeps it pretty short for the hallways, but you can still shoulder it for quicker follow-ups. Plus I can still pull the extended tube, put on a longer barrel, and use it for shotgun purpose “y.” Pistol grips look good (or bad, depending on the context) on screen, but I’m not too worried (maybe 10%) about a film crew busting into my house on a false warrant.

        • I’m not sure of the legality in CA of those m4 style stocks. For a dedicated house gun I would prefer that to a stockless gun.

    • My kind of woman.

      A couple I knew finally got married a couple of years ago, and after subtly asking him what caliber she shot (turns out both of them use 9mm), I got them “his” and “hers” boxes of NATO-spec ammo, clearly labeled as such. A bit cheap-seeming perhaps (though I also gave them money) but this was when 9mm was next to impossible to find. They were pleased.

  6. Isnt that part of Murphys Law?

    Everytime you get in a shooting situation, the one dumb enough to stick their butt up, will inevitably find the joker with the shotgun who thinks its funny as hell to shoot the dumb one in the butt….HEHEHEHEHEHE (e.g. John Wayne in Big Jake)!

  7. Still, she shot at a fleeing suspect… and that works against the rest of us who follow the law to the letter. The anti’s will call this “being judge and jury” by firing when her life wasn’t being threatened; she was pissed off that somebody broke into her house. The antis don’t want regular folks to have access to guns ‘because we might get pissed off during a road-rage incident and shoot somebody’ (reference the recent posting about George Zimmerman).

    • I realize courts don’t usually like this kind of logic, but how did she know he wasn’t coming back? Maybe with friends? I am sure he didn’t express why he was there before he left.

      For all she knows, he may be someone she knew that had a grudge against her, and may keep trying until he can get to her. If you have to lay down your arms every time someone even pretends to run away that just gives someone an easy way to try try again.

      In my mind, they have already made their error and until they are no longer on your property, it’s open season.

    • Most people will view events through the prism of their own preconceived notions. That said, there are at least three important factors in this case that distinguish it from a routine road rage incident.

      First, it happened at night. Many states’ laws automatically grant more leeway to defenders and treat more severely offenders if the original crime happens at night; especially home burglaries. Call it a quirk in the law that goes back to the days before widespread electric lighting, when nighttime put defenders at a disadvantage to attackers. Or even farther back to all of history where humans have been primarily diurnal beings, where nighttime puts all of us at a disadvantage to other creatures. Either way, the law sometimes looks more leniently on defenders attacked at night, because they’re considered especially vulnerable to a an especially cowardly attack.

      Second, the burglar had already kicked in her door. This isn’t just the homeowner’s anger at being cut off in traffic, with no actual crime committed and no tangible damage caused. Her homestead has been invaded and violated already. So it’s a much larger event, permitting a much stronger response.

      Finally, speaking of response, at least in Texas, but perhaps in Oklahoma, too, the law specifically allows the use of deadly force in response to burglary. There’s recent case law of burglars having been shotgunned in the back while fleeing and the shooter isn’t even indicted. So it’s not just the difference between paper law and trial law.

      It’s possible that people may draw the wrong conclusions from this event and improperly compare it to that of hair trigger reactions to highway infractions; but overall, the preponderance of the circumstances really do divide the two scenarios into distinct categories.

      • Very well; it’s not the same as a road rage incident. However, my understanding of the law is that I am only allowed to use lethal force to protect my life. If I shoot an intruder on my property that broke into my car (which happens all the time here in the U.S.) I chance losing my 2A rights and my freedom, because the use of lethal force wasn’t necessary to save my life. Basically, I suspect I have to do it “cleaner” than most Americans commenting on this event because I’m viewed as part of a ‘different demographic’ [i.e., maybe if I were a “white American”, I’d have more confidence in my ability to not be prosecuted unnecessarily]. But, being ‘who I am’, I have to make sure that I’m always in a position to avoid potential prosecution.

        The point I made about ‘the antis possibly using this as evidence against legal gun ownership’ still stands.

  8. “We wouldn’t recommend sending buckshot toward a fleeing suspect no matter how protective you are.”

    Come on now, she was just “tagging” him so he’d be easier to find later.

  9. I would fear retaliation for just injuring him.. im in california so shooting blindly into the dark at his backside is frowned upon anyways

  10. She did what the VP said to do. Fire a warning shot out the door. She can’t help it if the dummy runs in front of it. Way to go mom.

  11. Sorry, but I just don’t see shooting someone in the back when they don’t pose a threat as being a reasonable response. But I don’t blame her either. Do something stupid like that and you’re bound to be on the receiving end of the adrenaline fueled actions of a defender.
    I don’t think she was in the wrong per-say but we should not encourage firing on a fleeing target unless we have reason to believe they pose a threat or will pose a threat in the future.
    Never been a fan of the concept that “any criminal deserves to be shot.” I support the right of someone defending their home, but I don’t think that firing on a fleeing, unarmed individual is something we should encourage.
    People do stupid things. They don’t all deserve death.
    I hope she at least lived somewhere that her shot didn’t have a backstop of a neighbor’s home or something to that effect.
    Operate responsibly. Don’t hold back when you’re threatened, but don’t just fire a gun because someone was in your home. That’s how people miss and hit innocents, or shoot family members through a door.
    Train to control yourself under stress if you’re going to have a firearm.
    Again, I support this mother for acting in defense of her house and her family. I just don’t think we should be so gungho about ending a life of another human being. Especially if no violent crime took place.
    But I don’t know any of the circumstances. Any number of variables could have made my point completely moot.
    And all’s well that ends well, so as long as she and her family are safe, this is arguably a win.
    I’m sure I’ll get a lot of shit for that opinion here, but there ya go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *