It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use: Douglas Staples Edition

Douglas Staples (courtesy fosters.com)

Sometimes these posts write themselves, with help from the mainstream media. This is one of those times [via fosters.com]. . .

According to the indictments, Douglas Staples [above] strangled his girlfriend with his hands sometime between September and October in 2012 in Farmington.

During that same time period, the indictments state Staples also strangled the woman by placing a rifle across her throat.

The indictments also state on or between Jan. 21 and 22, 2013, Staples “caused serious bodily injury” to the same woman by setting her on fire, which resulted in first and second-degree burns to her chest, abdomen, arms and hands.

According to the indictments, during that same time period Staples placed the woman “in fear of imminent bodily injury” by slamming a rifle into a wall and saying he was going to kill himself and her.

Would a restraining order prior to these incidents have done anything to deter Mr. Staples from this attack? I don’t think so. Would a firearm pointed in his direction have prevented the assault? Yes. Yes it would have. That is all.

comments

  1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I think the only way to have prevented furthers crimes with that guy would have been to pull the trigger after pointing said firearm.
    He ain’t right.

    1. avatar Kapeltam says:

      A well-placed double tap would usually ends hostilities pretty quick.

    2. avatar sarcastic Sal says:

      Dude,
      What you said. He is lead deficient and a 230gr 45 HP will cure his issues.

  2. avatar MikeB in WI says:

    Hey RF, Mr. D__ S___ (fill in with whatever comes to mind) probably does need some “retraining,” but I think the word for which you are looking is “restraining.” 🙂

    And, NO, it would not have helped.

    Thanks

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Text amended. Thanks!

  3. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    Nyah! He looks like a Donald Roller Wilson painting.

  4. avatar Paul says:

    6 charges x 7 years each served consecutively = 42 years at taxpayer expense for this upstanding citizen (assuming guilt and the maximum sentence actually served.) Or indeed, the GF had plenty of cause to pull the trigger.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      The lefties call that “creating jobs.”

      1. avatar WedelJ says:

        Zing!

    2. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Sentence reduced by 50% due to overcrowding.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    Why didn’t the poor woman just piss herself or barf or something? Those are the tactics recommended by leftards, Xanax-gobblers and beta males everywhere. Because guns are icky.

    1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      Ralph, if she had defended herself with a gun this poor wayward boy would have died. Because she was willing to sign up for a long term stay at the burn unit and likely have severe PTSD for the rest of her life he gets to go on living. Can’t you see how that is better for her and society? . . . where did I put the disinfectant. I need to clean my keyboard after typing that.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Burn the mutherfucker. Your keyboard and this waste of skin.

  6. avatar BDub says:

    Will anybody here be surprised when the MOMz count the “choking” incident as “gun violence”?

  7. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Some animals just need to be put down. He needs killin’ as my uncle used to say.

  8. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    “Would a firearm pointed in his direction have prevented the assault? Yes. Yes it would have.”

    I take issue with that statement. As we pro-gun rights types often recite, guns don’t shoot themselves. The intended victim would have to pull the trigger.

    Let’s not forget that we’re dealing with a typical domestic assault victim. A woman who stays with her abuser long after he has demonstrated the ability to inflict serious bodily harm.

    Psychologists probably have a word for that. I call it a special kind of stupid. Regardless what you call it, I’m doubting she would have the will to pull the trigger when she had the lawful opportunity.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Exactly. If she had the will to pull the trigger and put this reject down, she wouldn’t have stayed with him after the first hint of violence. I’m not blaming the victim here, just saying that domestic abuse has some really complex and frightening psychological components. It’s easy to say “she should have shot him”, but the reality is that the kind of woman willing to defend herself with lethal force doesn’t often end up with an abusive shitbag like this.

  9. avatar Anonymous says:

    The lefties would say: None of those! Ban all guns!!! That would have stopped it! And it may have – with a gun. He still could have used a great deal of other methods with guns banned at the expense of millions of law abiding gun owners elsewhere. And I’m sure he could have still gotten an illegal gun with guns banned as has been easily proven in the UK and France.

    1. avatar Noah says:

      Not only that, he DID use another method. Strangulation. With bare hands. Bare hands, incidentally, are used to kill about twice as many people as rifles each year.

  10. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    And why was he not arrested and put in jail after the first incident? The woman decided not to press charges and it took all of that to push her from “but I LOVE him” to the realization that the next step for this violent creep was going to be her murder. Oh and if she had done of the leftard (thanks Ralph) standard stuff he would have used that to degrade her as well, and it would have encouraged more of the same. Submissive cringing in fear is the sort of thing that further encourages this kind of loser.

  11. avatar jwm says:

    How could any woman look at this slack jawed, uneven eyed, droopy eared obvious rocket scientist and not see TROUBLE.

    I wanna see the victim(don’t knot your panties. Sometimes the victim is at least partly to blame.) Wanna bet she can fill at least 3 categories in pictures of wal mart people?

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Blame, or even partial blame, is the wrong way to characterize the victim’s role in this chain of events.

      Still, there should be a special category of Darwin Award nominees for people who fail to remove themselves from the path of an obvious threat to their lives.

  12. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Picture gives me the creeps. If he was looking at me like that on the street, I would have my hand on my gun until he was out of sight.

    1. avatar billy-bob says:

      Yep. Not enough branches in that family tree.

  13. avatar Paul53 says:

    Obviously we need more laws on firearms.

  14. avatar jwm says:

    First time he strangled her was with his Hands. And he couldn’t have Handled the rifle without his Hands. And I’ll bet his Hands were somehow involved in the burning her thing.

    I’m beginning to see a pattern here. The 2a says we can keep and bear arms. It don’t say nothing about Hands.

    I begin to see a gun control loophole here.

    1. avatar RKS says:

      Laughed a lot at that, thank you.

  15. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Tiss Tiss…hope Hillary gets to hear and believe her story.

  16. avatar Defens says:

    Is it counted as “gun violence” if the gun is used as a strangling tool?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Since it no doubt occurred in an area that is part of some school district or other, it would probably be counted as a “school shooting”.

  17. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    Something doesn’t smell right here; two years to indict this guy??????
    “The indictments also state on or between Jan. 21 and 22, 2013…”

  18. avatar Rokurota says:

    …saying he was going to kill himself and her.

    If only he had pursued his goals in that order.

  19. avatar philip says:

    Hey assholes, he was acquitted of all charges, because contrary to popular belief, women lie.

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