Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Maternal Deterrence Edition


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

“[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.


  1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    Ooorahhh! Way to go Mom. She’s now a member of Palin’s Mama Grizzlies.

  2. avatar Excedrine says:

    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.

  3. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    That’s for sure. A momma protecting her cub is more dangerous then any man. 🙂

  4. avatar Scrubula says:

    But he was just a misguided 21 year old child!

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      He literally turned his life around and was shocked back to reality!

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        There are probably a few folks on these pages who could “Hydra-shock” him back to reality.

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Probably another Gentle Giant.

  5. avatar Paul says:

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

    1. avatar Phil COV says:

      All depends on the district, unfortunately.

    2. avatar Dillon says:

      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

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “sprinkled some hemoglobin on his way out”
    Charge that POS with littering too!

    1. avatar Scrubula says:

      I wonder if they traced the bread crumbs back to a hospital and caught him yet?

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Given the nasty pathogens he might have in his system, he has created a public health hazard too.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        He should be charged with use of a Biological WMD.

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Way to go! She needs a stock on her Mossberg(?). Better AIM for backsides 🙂

    1. avatar Tomyironmane says:

      Looks like a Mossberg 590. My brother got his wife the longer one with bayonet lugs and put an adjustable stock on it because she’s short.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Oh dear, an assault Mossberg…

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      She hit him, at what sounds like some distance, in poor lighting conditions. Doesn’t sound like she needs to improve her aim at all to me.

    3. avatar Panzercat says:

      Meh, a laser setup works wonders on the targeting of backsides with pistol grip shotties.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        I wonder if that 3-dot “Predator” laser sight is still available…

        Be really nice if it could be adjusted for the shottie’s spread…

  8. avatar jwm says:

    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.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      And who’s to say the goblin wouldn’t have made a second try if she hadn’t followed up?

      1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        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.

  9. avatar dirk diggler says:

    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

    1. avatar Joel says:

      Yay! Another mom who takes action, instead of simply demanding it!

  10. avatar Tom W. says:

    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.

  11. avatar Aaron says:

    just when you’re feeling down about ISIS, Ebola, etc., along comes a heart-warming story to brighten the day.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    She cocked a pump action shotgun? Kinky!

  13. avatar SD3 says:

    Not that I really *care*, but that barrel doesn’t look like 18″.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      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.

      1. avatar knightofbob says:

        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.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          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.

    2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Chamber opening is 3 inches, compare the known with the barrel and it looks more than 18 inches to me.

  14. avatar Gregg says:

    The female is always the more deadly of the species.

  15. avatar tdiinva says:

    I gave my wife her M-9 and two boxes of Hornady Critical defense for a Mother’s Day present.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Suggest you stay on her good side.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      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.

  16. avatar Phil COV says:

    Hopefully he’ll be caught and arrested, that way he’ll continue to get nailed in the butt.

  17. avatar Dave Lewis says:

    If they find the bad guy I suspect that the only thing the DA will say is “nice pattern”. I love Oklahoma.

  18. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Most ladies I know don’t like shotguns, too much thump, but hey, sending lead is sending lead.

  19. avatar Lolinski says:

    You don’t turn down free guns, even if they are stockless (a 2×4, saw, screws and some tape can fix that).

  20. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I can see this scenario being a problem in a liberal state.

  21. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

    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)!

    1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      +1 for John Wayne reference. One of his better movies.

  22. avatar Static NAT says:

    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).

    1. avatar Misnomer says:

      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.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      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.

      1. avatar Static NAT says:

        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.

  23. avatar Misnomer says:

    “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.

  24. avatar Grindstone says:

    Not the first time. Apparently you should NOT mess with single Oklahoma moms:

  25. avatar MandPmike says:

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

  26. avatar flboots says:

    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.

  27. avatar Byron says:

    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.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email