Saturday, October 7, 2006

Was Eric Hainstock a Victim?

Mike Nichols of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides some information on Eric Hainstock's life outside of Weston High School, where he murdered Principal John Klang.

He relays the sad saga of the abuse that Eric Hainstock suffered at the hands of his unfit parents.

Nichols writes:


The "board of education" in the Hainstock house was a paddle, one with those very words written upon it in what was surely supposed to be an amusing pun, that prosecutors once said his dad used to whomp on him.

Shawn Hainstock, a 2001 abuse complaint alleged, also spanked his son with a belt, kicked him, threatened him with juvenile court and foster care - something that, actually, would have been a blessing. Instead he lived in a home that was a curse.

Everyone wonders what schools can do to stop these kids. The answer: nothing.

That's not true.

Schools can employ measures to keep weapons out.

It's just not true that schools can do nothing to stop the violence.

I think most school officials harbor that "It can't happen here" attitude. That's a problem that needs to be addressed, inadequate assessment of the threat.

The fact is it can happen -- anywhere.


Certainly, they try. The abuse complaint filed against Shawn Hainstock, which eventually resulted in a deferred prosecution agreement and then was dismissed, suggests it was the school that notified authorities of the abuse after the boy wrote about it in class.

As a result, Eric Hainstock was placed with a grandmother until April of 2002, when he was allowed to return to his home. Not that it was ever much of one.

Eric Hainstock's parents divorced in 1993 after a short marriage, and Judge Patrick Taggart found in a 1995 opinion that both had "serious limitations." Both were instructed, among other things, not to take the boy, who was 4 years old, to any taverns.

Although unemployed and on disability, the father seems to have had some redeeming qualities.

The boy's mother apparently wanted so little to do with him, or with child support payments, that her parental rights were terminated entirely in 2000. That was shortly before police were told that the boy had a problem that affected his behavior and that his family could no longer afford medication or counseling.

One of the reasons, court records suggest, that his mother was not better at supporting him? She apparently remarried and got pregnant not long after the divorce was finalized and, according to a 1996 letter sent to the Sauk County Child Support Agency, couldn't work for a while because of pregnancy-related discomfort.

Eric Hainstock had a horrible home life.

He had parents who didn't care for him properly, a father who beat him and a mother who didn't even want to bother to do that.

It seems that Nichols is trying to make a connection between Hainstock's crimes and his lack of medication and counseling.

Is he suggesting that the police should be blamed for letting Hainstock slip through the cracks, or that the government is at fault because Hainstock didn't have his medical needs met?


I'm not sure what Nichols is suggesting. I think he may be saying that one shouldn't blame Hainstock for being a monster. Instead, one should blame the creators of the monster.


Eric Hainstock is 15 years old and if he is found guilty he should spend his life in a cell. But 15 is not 25, and you have to acknowledge that it takes some kind of odd crucible to warp a kid that young.

That doesn't happen because some board of education somewhere - a real one - didn't mandate enough counselors or anti-bully programs. Schools aren't parents, much as some parents would like them to be.

That's not just unrealistic. When a kid has a warped view of a parent to start with, that can, we now know, also be dangerous.

So, who's to blame for Hainstock bringing a gun to school and killing the principal?

His dad?

His mom?

The police?

The Sauk County Child Support Agency?

Nichols declares that the school can't be blamed. He believes that Hainstock didn't murder Klang because a board of education failed to put an anti-bully program in place or provide counselors.

It's strange that Nichols would say that, considering earlier in his column he implied that Hainstock's lack of counseling played a part in his violent, deadly outburst.

Whatever, Nichols insists that the school is not at fault.

He also believes that fifteen-year-old Eric is not to be blamed. He was as much a victim of circumstances as Klang. Nichols wants some sympathy for Eric Hainstock. He was abused. He had a very rough life. So he committed murder.

I think that Hainstock deserves some sympathy for being born into such a difficult and loveless environment; but if every kid that had a rough home life shot and killed the principal, then there would be a shortage of principals.

Many, many kids suffer in bad homes. Very, very few decide that the appropriate response is to go to school and kill someone.

Was Eric Hainstock a victim?

Yes.

Did that, in turn, give him license to victimize?

No.



29 comments:

Cari said...

As a Mother, Child Advocate and Certified Paralegal, I am disgusted at the community that failed Eric Hainstock. This poor boy was doomed from the day he was born. Why is it that so many people watched and seen the abuse and no one stepped up to help?

Where was the school system and medical community when this child needed help for his ADHD and learning disabilities when the family could not afford it? Where were the neighbors and DCFS while this boy was being spoon fed hot peppers and living in squaller? Where were the police and the judges when his father physically and mentally abused him and was still allowed to live with him? Where were the teachers and principal when Eric was being bullied and called a fag? Where are the parents now of the kids who bullied Eric and called him names they would not want to be called themselves? Where were the church members and faculty that seen the physical abuse spread all over Eric's body? Where was Eric's Mother?

Did any of you folks follow the Cody Posey trial in New Mexico? His story is a shocking comparison to Eric's. That boy was also abused by his parents and neglected by his community. People in your Wisconsin community keep stating they don't understand how something like this can happen. Let's not play stupid here. That community knows full well how it happened and it's called ignorance. No one cared enough to do anything even though this abused, neglected boy was right in eyes sight. I am sorry the principal lost his life but I beg to differ on the hero issue. There are no hero's in this tragic case at all because if there were, we would not be here today talking about this 15 year old child.

Please visit www.justiceforjuveniles.org. Eric will be tried as an adult as I am sure you all know. That means he will be prosecuted and punished as one. That will mean no second chances. No counseling. No rehabilitation. He will be warehoused for the rest of his life abused, neglected, assaulted, raped and isolated. Hasn't he had a life time of that already?

It is not to late for the community to stand up for this child. Help us help him. Visit and read about Cody Posey. Visit Eric's thread and see how many people across the country are concerned for this poor boy. We can't keep turning our backs on our children. We can't keep throwing them away like yesterdays garbage. What society does to it's children, it's children will do to society.

Cari Barichello
Administrator of www.justiceforjuveniles.org

Mary said...

You make some interesting points and ask some important questions, Cari.

There's no question that Eric needed help and he didn't get it.

Still, that's no excuse to kill.

And John Klang was a hero. He sacrificed himself to save others.

Eric's history of abuse is a sad case, but we can't have students gunning down principals.

That would lead to anarchy.

I think he should be tried and punished as an adult.

He made the choice to kill.

Mary said...

He maybe didn't have much of a choice but to kill.

That is stunning.

You can't be serious.

That's sick. Really.

I agree that people in authority and school officials do a horrible job of addressing bullying.

No kid should be subjected to such torture day in and day out.

There is no question that Hainstock needed help that he didn't get.

There is also absolutely no question whatsoever that he should have chosen to commit murder as the solution to his problems.

I don't get this Culture of Death.

Hainstock was old enough to reason that what he was doing was murder.

Are twelve or thirteen-year-old girls old enough to choose to killl their unborn babies?

In that case, they're supposed to be capable of making such a decision, right?

Your argument is that poor, little Hainstock wasn't capable of understanding his choice.

I disagree.

Instead of "Justice for Juveniles," I'm for "Justice for all."

Mary said...

Bernman, as I said before, it is a failure of school authorities to ignore the problem of bullying. Obviously, it can have deadly consequences.

Hainstock needed adults to intervene and they didn't.

I think there should be zero tolerance for bullies. We agree that bullying is a serious threat to the safety of students and staff at schools.

I'm sorry that you've been victimized. And I know personally that school authorities don't come to the aid of victims as they should.

It is a horrible dereliction of their duty to create a safe learning environment for kids.

We agree on all of that. Believe me, I understand.

My question for you: Did you respond to a bad situation by committing murder?

That's the difference.

Mary said...

What a horrible experience, Bernman!

You're absolutely right. School authorities so often blame the bullying victims rather than punishing the perpetrators. I suppose it's easier that way, but it's completely backwards.

I think such responses are unconscionable.

There is no question that schools, counselors, and parents are dropping the ball when it comes to handling bullies.

Thankfully, you didn't make the sort of choices that Eric did.

I think it's wonderful that you are making a difference in the lives of kids being tortured by thugs.

I'm terribly sorry that you went through what you did. Obviously, you're a very strong person, a survivor, and a very caring person as well.

It's very admirable that you're using your past suffering to alleviate the suffering of others.

J.S. said...

I would like to direct this to Cari Barichello after reading her little piece here, as well as all the other individuals who seem to be repeatedly claiming that nothing was done by school authorities to curtail bullying. Before I do so, I would like to say that I personally feel sorry that Eric Hainstock lived a rough life, I hope that he can get counseling and be rehabilitated. However, that doesn't lessen the magnitude of his crime, it doesn't change the fact that it was premeditated, and he should pay the price for his actions.

In your little piece, you say "I am disgusted at the community that failed Eric Hainstock". Well, I am a member of that community, and personally I am disgusted with you, and all the other ignorant people that are like you. You make vague accusations and haven't a clue what you are talking about. We have a special ed. child and are extremely pleased with all that has been done for him. He has made great progress, and we hold the faculty of Weston and Mr. Klang in the most highest esteem. I'm sure Eric was afforded every opportunity, as our child has.
Eric's father used rather extreme measures of discipline, but I've heard of much worse. Certainly his home life was difficult, but the situation was soon to be remedied. He had relatives that cared about him, as well as friends. He was at the home of a friend the day before the tradgedy, (right up the road from us) working on homecoming float, and having dinner. You portray him as being so pitiful, and you haven't a clue. This boy picked on kids frequently himself. Yes, that's right. He wasn't the poor, pathetic kid always on the recieving end; he dealt it plenty himself. It's also been mentioned that he was dirty. Well, gee, at the age of 15 don't you suppose he could have bathed himself? He was old enough to be somewhat responsible. He knew right from wrong, and when he walked into our school with those guns on that terrible day, he had thought things out, and it was premeditated. He had planned what he was going to do.
I don't know what your point is really. Because the boy had a difficult home life that means that what he did should be overlooked, or dealt with more lightly?
As for your sarcastic little comment, "I am sorry the principal lost his life but beg to differ on the hero issue. There are no hero's in this tragic case at all because if there were, we would not be here today talking about this 15 year old child."
You obviously must not know the meaning of the word. Mr. Klang was a hero in ever sense of the word. He selflessly disarmed this boy, and possibly saved the lives of many of the staff and students. He was a courageous, noble man. He was a hero to many in life, even before the tradgedy.
Mr. Klang never turned a blind eye to a problem. Mr. Klang was 'Johhny on the spot'. He took necessary actions, and he did so immediately. He had a wonderful rapport with the kids, and everyone for that matter. He was just and fair. I'll tell you about my personal experiences with Mr. Klang:
Last year the school had just implemented a new dress code. One rule was no skin on abdomen, or back showing, no revealing clothes, foul words, torn jeans, etc), Our daughter (in my opinion) always dressed tastefully for a kid. She did however like to wear little t-tops where the bottom of the top would just meet the top of her pants. Well.....needless to say, sometimes when she moved the top would shift and reveal a very little of her back or tummy. Well, after a warning, and then a second offense, Mr. Klang gave her a detention to serve. At the time, I was upset, as my daughter is a great kid, never in trouble, high honors student....and all the rest. Both myself, and my husband spoke to Mr. Klang, and the detention stuck. It didn't take me long to realize how right and fair Mr. Klang really was. She served the detention, and made some wardrobe changes.
Another time, our other child was being picked on on the bus. Some kid was hitting him on the head and things. I called and spoke to Mr. Klang. I only knew the boy's first name. Mr. Klang knew right away after hearing what bus it was (in other words, what area we lived in), who the abusive boy was. That's how well he knew his students. He told me he would take care of it right away. He did. He called me back in less than 10 minutes and told me he'd spoken to the boy, and assured me that it shouldn't happen again. It didn't happen again either.
But here is one heartwarming story that I will never, ever forget. One morning I was waiting with our special ed child for him to be picked up for school. The bus wasn't showing up. I came back in the house, called the school, and the clerk told me that it was a different driver and he had accidentally missed our son, but that Mr. Klang should be pulling up any minute to get him! I was just floored. Sure enough there was poor Mr. Klang, and he looked just sick as a dog. His eyes were red, and his nose was running like a faucet. I don't know if he had a bad case of allergies, or a cold that day, but he was sick. As it turned out, our son really wanted me to drive him in our new truck. I had to. So, Mr. Klang and I had a little chuckle about the whole thing, and we each hopped in our seperate vehicles and headed to the school. Who would've thought? What kind of guy would go through the trouble to personally pick up one of the kids, 40 minutes round trip, sick as can be? Mr. Klang!!! And that's the kind of man he was.
Mr. Klang was a wonderful, dedicated man who always went above and beyond for everyone. One lady told me a story about how he'd buy a new pair of gym shoes and behave like they were just a little too tight on him, and privately offer them to one of the kids that might be able to use them. Eric was one of those kids who got a pair.
This is only a very small example of how things are here. Mr. Klang, as well as the rest of the faculty were/are very involved, and truly devoted to the kids. Mr. Klang was just a one of a kind, very special person and loved by all in the community. It makes it all the more difficult to read dumb, ignorant off the cuff remarks by people such as yourself. Because you just don't know. You have not a clue.
I'd be curious to know exactly how many kids you've personally gotten help for in your own community, how you went about doing so, and what the end results were.
As "a mother" I'd be curious to know if your perfect children have never done anything hurtful to another peer? How about you yourself when you were a kid?
Being a "certified paralegal" (GUFFAW.....your education is impressive), does your work somehow interrelate to your being such a superior "child advocate"?
Say, maybe you might sound a little more credible if you sold everything you own to help post Eric's bail???
Not to be rude, but you sound like a self-righteous hippocrate to me.

Mary said...

Thank you, J.S., for providing some of your experiences with Mr. Klang. I appreciate your contribution.

Reading your stories was heartwarming yet heartbreaking.

As I said before, I consider Mr. Klang a hero for sacrificing himself to save others. Now, I learn that his devotion to students was deeply rooted.

Hainstock's murder of Mr. Klang was so senseless. What a loss for the community!

Hainstock's life doesn't excuse him for bringing a gun to school and committing murder.

It's inexcusable.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Eric Hainstock was right to bring guns in school nor to shoot and kill anyone. Was he an victim? Yes. Did he make others victims? Yes!

I was once told by an ex-English teacher, while revisiting my high school after 5 years as a graduate, and he told me that I was the first student that they can identify as "at risk".

I wrote this blog in 1996 after a 17 year old boy committed suicide after being gay-bashed in his high school. It brought back a lot of memories.
People / society has not taken bullying as a serious offense. Parents have shrugged shoulders and said such silly things as "boys will be boys" as if this is the natural order of things. After Columbine I wondered if I could have gone on such a rampage.

Here is some of my blog:

I remember my great sense of outrage and horror when I first learned of the hate assault on Bill, Sam and Jenny. I was paralyzed with disgust and anger because it brought up so much unresolved rage and pain I carry over my treatment in high school some 17-20 years earlier. I was told about the rally, but chose not to attend - not because I did not care - but because I was so angry! After nearly 20 years as a Gay activist, I have reached a point to where I can hardly maintain my composure when confronted with the bigotry, name-calling, hatred, etc. Also, I had grown increasingly tired of Gays and Lesbians being used as whipping posts in media frenzies during political campaigns, in sermons from right-wing churches (in what can truly be labeled the "bully pulpit"), and in vile and nasty letters-to-the-editor in the local daily paper (and elsewhere). After the '94 election, I became deeply disillusioned with our country, political system, organizing, rallies, etc. My anger reached the point that I could no longer stand and fight the way I had in years past. There is one more reason I couldn't come...

I was a continuous victim of physical and emotional abuse at my high school, the memories of which can still haunt me today, (if I do not remain diligent in believing in myself). I thought of Bill and Sam and just wondered... "why do they hate us so?" "why would anyone assume the right to attack somebody for being different than what they are?" "where are they learning how to despise their human brothers and sisters?" "how could it be that this sort of thing is *still* happening nearly 20 years out of my high school experience?"

I was so hopeful when I read the news report in the paper and Bill's comments. I was touched with great warmth when I read his brother's letter thanking the community for their support. I, too, was hopeful that Bill, Sam and Jenny would overcome this assault and be even more outspoken in their condemnation of homophobia and hate crimes. Of course I had forgotten how depressing it is to experience being an object of another person's hate when you are struggling with life changes that come in high school anyway. Gosh, it is still hard for me to believe today that 40% of our population (Washington State) would vote for a Christian Coalition candidate for governor who vowed to fight the Gay community. Maybe I was so optimistic about Bill, Sam and Jenny because they had the support of you, your husband and son, among others. Having a loving homelife is such a crucial part of the healing process, and -- alas -- I was not granted that comfort either.

When I heard about Bill's suicide, I was overcome with deep sadness and grief. No, I had never met him face to face, but you see... in many ways he was my peer in the struggle against hate, those many years after my high school experience. His death brought back all those memories, and with it the resentments, frustration, rage, self-hatred, destructive behavior, you name it. I too was suicidal in my teens. I didn't know how to face people in my school, some of whom would kick me, punch me, you name it, and some I didn't even know. That is what made it so incredible to me. I would think, "how could someone who doesn't even know me, punch me like that?" I guess it is because as a "Fag" or "fairy" or whatever, I was not considered human. I still wonder how I was able to survive those dreadful years! But I did, and today I am grateful for that!

I did not know Bill personally, but I felt this deep emotion that a "brother" of mine - a promise for the next generation - had died. I felt this connection I had not felt in a long time. It was like I was being called there and needed to go.

You had a couple guest books open for people to complete and I started to write how sorry I was and how distressing it was for me personally to know that Bill lost his struggle, because of all I had and continue to endure in my battle for respect, dignity and understanding. The memorial was packed! And the film you did was quite touching, as was the silent procession to the Park. In the memorial flyer, I finally got to see Bill's face, which made it even more devastating...cause he was young, and full of so much potential, which we were denied when his pain and grief became too difficult to endure. I can't help but feel absolute disgust at the young people who assaulted him, and the mean letters to the editor, and at the man who raped him.

Although reading his story made me sad once more, and once again made me so sad that I had never had the opportunity to meet him, his death is not totally in vain. Bill's story is educating us all on the importance of acceptance, civility, and yes - of course - love. It is clearly showing that hate takes a great toll on humanity, and that we can not sit back silently when the homophobia beast rears its poisonous head. It brings out the activist in many of us!! Also, through Bill's death,

Bill's death and Bill's story made it possible for me to reach deep inside my own psyche and come to terms with my experiences of being a hate target. I am not there yet, but I know I am on my way.

With warmest hugs and love,

************

Jump ahead 11 years. I've come a long way. God knows, I'm not perfect, who is? But as a victim of abuse who felt hopeless and helpless, did I dream of taking revenge? YES! I dreamed of silly things, like being bionic so I could throw my tormentors through walls and inflict back the pain that they inflicted on my. I think I credit the love and care of my grandmother for helping me regain some self-esteem. For this I am always grateful.

I only share this perspective because there by the grace of God, or higher power, or guardian angel ... I could have snapped and done horrible things. Take bullying seriously! It's not just "boys being boys" and "kids being kids". It is abuse and it is traumatic.

In memory of Bill !!!

Mary said...

I support strong punishment for bullying.

No kid should have to be subjected to such torturous treatment while at school.

Problems need to be addressed. No doubt about it.

But as I said months and months ago:

Was Eric Hainstock a victim?

Yes.

Did that, in turn, give him license to victimize?

No.

Anonymous said...

So many questions! But first, a response to Mary's annoying mantra: was Eric Hainstock a victim? > agree he was; did that, in turn, give him license to victimize? >Bzrrrt! In a school culture which gave license to his bullies, why shouldn't he be accorded the same? So you're saying that he should have been discriminated against, ie. bullied more. If his response seems too violent, the implied license given to his bullies left it up to them to determine the level of violence, not the victim.

The problem with most anti-bullying schemes is that the punishment comes too long after the bullying. By then the bullies have already gotten positive feedback from the other students, and the usual punishments (detention, expulsion, etc.) are seen as badges of honor. The scifi author Robert Heinlein once said: "An armed society is a polite society". His example was Spain at the height of it's empire: every adult male carried a sword, and insults were taken care of right then and there, not at some indeterminate later time. Troublemakers were quickly weeded out, and Spain was a verrry polite society. Of course swords are less lethal than guns and only adults were allowed to carry them. I'm not suggesting that juveniles be allowed to carry knives or guns, but if you're not going to allow victims the same license, you have to find some way to put them on an equal footing with the bully. Let's face it: the most effective way to stop bullying is to make clear to the bully that it will cost more than it's worth.

Speaking of bullys, just who were they in Eric's case. Their names were never mentioned so society couldn't even cry shame! A great deal was made of how Eric was abused at home, but nothing was said about the parents who raised the monsters who bullied Eric. Bullying is a learned response. The parents of the Columbine victims are still using the courts to bully the Klebold and Harris families; where do you think their kids got it from?

How did they justify trying Eric as an adult? And how could the jury find premeditation when the prosecutor offered no supporting evidence? And why did they let the state get away without including lesser charges? A lesser degree of murder or manslaughter would seem fairer.

I just don't see John Klang as a hero. He sounds like a basically good man who made a foolish decision. He grabbed the gun and it went off, which also speaks against premeditation. As for supposedly heroically protecting his students, Eric made it clear that he wanted to talk to Klang in his office, which would have moved them away from the students, focussed Eric's attention on Klang, and given authorities time to respond. Instead his damnfoolishness just made a bad situation worse.

Mary said...

First, do you know what a mantra is?

Second, you do a grave disservice to John Klang.

Bitch and moan all you want. That won't change anything.

Hainstock had his day in court and he got what he deserved.

Anonymous said...

Eric is a child who will spend his life behind bars and will endure greater sins against him than we can imagine.
I have read that he was on ritalin, which is comparable to cocaine.
This child, and I repeat CHILD, is the poster boy for what's wrong with a society that thinks drugging children is the answer to everything. And a society who believes children should be tried as adults.
And, had he been able to afford a dream team defense, would he be treated for emotional problems instead of being in a prison for adults?

Anonymous said...

Yes, Mary, I do know what a mantra is; it's use here conforms to contemporary usage. And you didn't answer the question: if the local culture gives license to school bullies with no restrictions on the level of violence they employ, then why doesn't Erik qualify for the same license?

As for for questioning John Klang's actions (and inactions), maybe, just maybe, an honest discussion of his shortcomings will save a few principals's lives down the road. Klebold & Harris complained about Columbine's jocks stuffing them into toilets and lockers, and we got a school administrator and long-time football coach claiming he didn't know his boys were doing this. Eight years later we have a student with the very same complaint, years of asking the school for help, and the same results: total inaction on the part of the school, protection of the bullies' identities, and more dead. D'oh!

Public physical abuse like that is hard to keep quiet. For someone supposedly so close to his studens to not know about it is simply unbelievable, yet apparently he did nothing.

Mary said...

Your question is so ridiculous it really doesn't warrant a response.

Did the bullies commit murder?

MURDER?

Anonymous said...

No, these bullies didn't commit murder, but there are dozens of cases where the victims of bullying have died from abuse, including many who suffered the exact same kinds of abuse detailed in Eric's case. The fact that Eric's bullies hadn't killed anyone yet was just dumb luck. So, what's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

It's by no means clear that Eric actually committed murder. Oh yeah, you can claim it because a jury found him guilty, but that's just a legal fiction. It's not like he walked into school and opened fire. Klang bears some responsibility because he grabbed for the gun; that alone removes it from premeditated murder. And it sure wasn't to protect his students. He grapples with Eric right outside classrooms full of students instead of going with him into the office where they would be isolated from everyone else. Either he just panicked, or he was so angry that Eric had the temerity to demand to speak to him that he attacked him. Besides, if he was such a great protector of his students, why did he make no effort in 4+ years to protect Eric?

You certainly can't argue that it was a fair trial. How did the prosecutor manage to evade the laws that are supposed to protect minors from prosecution as an adult? And why did the jury let the prosecutor get away with not allowing consideration of lesser charges? After all, the whole point of the jury system is to protect defendants from malicious prosecution. Instead you have jurors admitting that they voted for conviction because Eric "looked guilty". Still, I guess you can't blame them entirely. After all, the prosecution deliberately selects jurors for gullibility.

I always show up for jury duty; it is after all my civic duty. And I know I'm never going to get selected once they see my list of science degrees and a long career in engineering and programming. It's a long boring day but I do get some amusement watching prosecutors tie themselves into knots trying to exclude me. You see, scientists have a pesky habit of concentrating on the facts instead of the expression on the defendant's face. They're the last people prosecutors want on a jury. So if the selection process discriminates against those of above average intelligence, you end up with a jury dumber than average. It was a jury that convicted Galileo of heresy for suggesting that the Earth went around the Sun. It was a jury that voted for conviction in the Salem Witch Trials and the Scopes Monkey Trial. And in Georgia a jury allowed that the Earth was flat.

As for this particular jury, I assume that they were checked to see if they were related to Eric or Klang. But were they checked to see if any were related to the bullies?

Anonymous said...

After further thought ...

The bullies did not commit murder by their own hand, but they are complicit in John Klang's death. It was their abuse which drove Eric to take the desperate measures for protection which resulted in Klang's death. It was the same level of abuse which drove Klebold & Harris at Columbine, so obviously the bullies had some complicity.

Anonymous said...

In a well researched article about this crime it was stated that this young man in kindergarten would tell the other kindergarteners that his father would kill them...when he didn't get his way. 3 schools and 11 years later he killed the principal. Some children do have very serious issues and should not be mainstreamed as the current laws require but should be put in private schools or institutions for both treatment and safety sake. I do not think public school systems are equipped to deal with the behavioral problems this child exibited in kindergarten and the other children certainly couldn't either. I would not want my children to be riding on a school bus with a 15 year old that "picked on the younger ones" as was testified to in court. Just imagine a child trying to understand Eric throwing things and his behavior toward them. In a small rural school, reported to hold all 300+ students from pre-k through 12, it is just wrong for the state laws to require that. It was unfair to the families sending their children, the teachers, the family of Eric who couldn't afford $50,000 to send him to the private school with counseling that was recommended to the family. Who could afford that unless the state paid for it? The real bully is the state law for not providing for the proper place for these children. Dumping them into a public school is not the proper place and everyone suffered from Eric, the other children, the school and Eric's family that said when he was on ritalin he was a zombie so they took him off. I am sure they didn't know what to do short of robbing a bank for that money to send him to the school that could perhaps help him. All of the people who are criticizing should look at the laws and think about a real answer to help these extreme cases. What changed from kindergarten until 15 year old? Not much because the state laws are the fault and do not provide the money so there you go with the "no child left behind" nonsense. All of the children are hurt because of it. Grown people blaming the children aren't much help either. The Friends Church turned away from calling authorities when they only took pictures of bites when any normal adult would make sure that he was treated for bites to prevent infection and DHS would be a normal place to call about abuse wouldn't it? And yet they finger point to everyone else but they are perfect. Take some responsibility to change laws to provide proper setting for kids like Eric before they murder again. Nothing has been learned from the Virginia Tech school shootings...like families should have a right to know just how unstable the other students are that are sitting next to their children. Laws protect the violent person but no one else.

Anonymous said...

I really wish Anonymous had mentioned where this "well researched article" could be found. I'd like to read it for myself. Using or threatening violence to get one's way is fairly common among 5-year-old boys, and kindergarten teachers see it all the time. But I have to wonder what we would find in the backgrounds of the school bullies who abused Eric if we subjected them to the same scrutiny.

I can see that parents wouldn't want their children riding the bus with someone who picked on the younger ones, but why was it acceptable for Eric to "ride the bus" with older bullies who picked on him? I suspect that Eric's bullying was a reaction to his being bullied. He could vent on others, and he could fit in with the other bullies who's behavior certainly seemed acceptable to the school system and the other parents.

So Anonymous wants to lock up abused children like Eric so he can feel "safe", and not have to admit his own responsibility. Ain't gonna happen! For one, how exactly are you going to identify them? Where are you going to set the line? The vast majority of them make it through their school years without being a danger. And given the sheer numbers, how can you be sure you got them all? You can't!

So what was different in Eric's case? The fact that all the supposedly responsible adults failed to take action when the schoolyard bullying crossed the line into outright physical abuse. I find it hard to believe that in a small town noone knew what was going on, didn't know who the bullies were, didn't even say "shame".

If you want to look on children like Eric as ticking bombs, what is the responsibility of adults who let their children kick them around? Bombs explode; that's their nature. But they almost never explode if left alone. So to my mind, the primary responsibility for Eric's outburst lays with the children who abused him and, to a large extent, the adults who stood by and let them do it. Given the eerie similarity to Columbine, didn't anybody in that town learn anything from it? Apparently not!

There's plenty of blame to go around, but nobody wants to admit their own culpability. Anonymous here wants to lay some of it off on the state. He has a valid, if impractical, point. But the sense I get of his posting is that he wants to get children like Eric put away to make the world safer for schoolyard bullies. That way the bullies wouldn't have to worry about any of their victims 'going off" on them. Yet the one thing that keeps bullies in check is the possibility that there will be consequences, their target will fight back or an adult will punish them. Can you imagine what it would be like if they could be certain that their targets wouldn't fight back? They would just get meaner and nastier, until they killed someone. And that has already happened.

The whole thing reminds me of the Bully's Lament: Boo Hoo, he hit me back first.

Mary said...

Give it up, Scaramouche.

Bullying is bad and should be taken seriously.

Being the victim of bullying does not give one license to choose to kill.

Hainstock had his day in court. A jury found him guilty. He is a cold-blooded murderer.

Case closed.

Anonymous said...

Eric had a day in court but he sure didn't have his day in court. The normal usage of "having one's day in court" is that one has a fair and impartial hearing; Eric didn't. For one thing, he never should have been in adult court; he should have been tried as a child. And a panel of jurors who decide guilt or innocence on the basis of how he looks doesn't strike me as fair or impartial.

So why try him as an adult? For one thing, it's easier to get a conviction because there are fewer safeguards for the defendant. For another, the bullies couldn't be identified in open court because they were likely minors. In fact, the whole charade strikes me as an unseemly rush to pin all the responsibility on Eric to protect the bullies. Going back to the bomb analogy, everyone wants to blame the bomb instead of the person who lit the fuse.

True, Being a victim of bullying does not give one a license to choose to kill. But there was little credible evidence that he "chose to kill". In fact, now that I find out that Klang, almost twice Eric's size, had him in a bear hug, squeezing the breath out of him, I could argue that the shooting was self defense. Eric didn't shoot the custodian who took the shotgun away from him. It wasn't until he was physically attacked that he fired.

So I come back to the role of the bullies. I hate to say "I told you so" but the shootings in Cincinnati just bear out what I've been saying, that the bullying is the key factor in the school shootings. There are likely tens of thousands of children with backgrounds similar to Eric's (which is one reason I think Anonymous's suggestion is impractical) but they don't all explode. Yet in almost every case when they do, there is a history of physical abuse from bullies.

He'd already been bullied within the school system for four years. He was a freshman so he had another four years of bullying to look forward to. Just what did you expect? I think he desrves a medal for putting up with it for all that time and for at least taking action against his tormentors when every single adult sat on their hands!

That's why I find Mary's opinions so hard to take seriously. Oh yes, she keeps repeating that "bullying is bad" and "should be taken seriously" but in all her posts she never once suggests what could or should be done to restrain the bullies, or even admit they had any responsibility at all.

Mary said...

Bottom line:

The bullies bear no responsibility for the murder of John Klang.

Anonymous said...

Scaramouche...I only intended to suggest that a private school with individual attention to help Eric with his educational and socialization skills in the early years even if his parents couldnt afford it or wouldn't agree to it might have been "in the best interest of the child." That is a suggestion for thought whether in that area or anywhere else. Other children are now victims of trauma.

Anonymous said...

Wall Street Journal article was "Educating Eric" fyi

Mary said...

Other children are now victims of trauma.

Yes, especially John Klang's children.

And, of course, John Klang is dead.

VincenZio said...

mistakes have been made, others will be blamed
I worte a poem about this event called "Admirable Infamy" look it up.

Anonymous said...

J.S. the bottom line is the community who saw what was happening and failed to intervene; the school, the principal, the police system and child protective system; failed Eric. Plain and simple.

The principal could have stopped the bullying or removed Eric to put him in a safe place. If you were unsafe at the hands of 25 of your professional peers, the law would protect you but it did not protect a student who is required to go to school by law.

All the aforementioned persons and groups failed. .

It is true that the consequences of our society are a result of the actions the society as a whole does or does not take.

Mr. Klang's death, and Eric's incarceration is a result of what your society did not do. You lose on both counts, both lives were wasted as a result of what every single person and group in your community failed to do.

Unfortunately, what is really sad here is that if the community does not show ownership for what they failed to do as they expect Eric to do, you are going to have the same thing happen again - students who are bullied, abused, neglected who become our problem one way or another.

You are your brother's keeper.

Anonymous said...

Mary, you are so incredibly naive. It is obvious from what you have written that you are indoctrinated and do not think for yourself. Your comments read as if your mind is a script.

EVERYONE had choices and made wrong decisions, not just Eric. Below there is a list of choices people failed to make properly. And my last comment is a consequence of those poorly made decisions.

Just a few of your comments for example

"I don't get this Culture of Death.

Hainstock was old enough to reason that what he was doing was murder."

"Culture of Death"? What about this culture of people that think they are doing the right thing and are oblivious to the real problem? What a ridiculous comment.

This happened as a set of events in which a student was obviously trying to be heard and not getting his needs met. He wanted to be heard. Can't you tell by the extreme measure he took?

People do not threaten others with a gun unless they are desperate.

What was wrong that Eric did not feel he was being heard that he would use a gun to get his point across? Hello, does that tell you something in your wooden naive way of thinking?

What is even more blundering idiotic is the steps people took who knew what was going on.

He was being sent right back to the place he was getting abuse -the bullies and his home situation. That does not sound as if anyone was helping him.

Just remember that you are like Eric when someone helps you are not really listening, even if they have 'good intentions' (like you say Klang has or that JS says the school has), but end up hurting your outcome somehow.

Eric was not being heard or responded to in a way that met his needs. No one listened, no one dealt with his problem.

If so, tell me
1. Who took him away from the problem of bullying - why was he still in school at a place where he was obviously being bullied by the same people every day?

2. Who made sure his parents did not lay a hand on him and stopped it for good?

3. Who ended the emotional abuse?

4. Who maintained an unsafe environment for Eric all of his 15 years by not acting on these problems?

5. Who made sure that his clothes fit or that he had the right clothes for school?

6. Who made sure that he got back on the right medication for him? The parents stopped giving him medication that worked for him because they did not have the money. Eric did not receive medical care that made a difference for him and no one stepped in.


JS. if anything you are the convoluted hypocrite. And by the way, it is not sarcasm to say Mr. Klang was not a hero. He is not a hero.

You and the lackadaisical, incompetent people who failed to keep this from escalating had numerous opportunities to help Eric and Mr. Klang at each and every sign which made it evident there was a problem.

Many people were aware along the way and did nothing about it. They should be serving their sentence right along side Eric. However they will eventually serve their sentence.

Anonymous said...

You can say he was a victim or the 'system' failed him, but whatever you say does not make what he did anymore justified. He took away a life and he ruined the lives of the guy's children, so why does he deserve to live a fulfilling life? Do people honestly think these type of people should be let back into society? Not every kid who had a rough life goes and kills people.


Also, just because 'Mary' isn't agreeing with what you say or is siding with popular opinion doesn't mean she isn't thinking for herself.

He was the one who physically decided to pick up the gun and kill. He has to pay the price.

You can't just condone people killing people whenever they feel like it.

Lethie said...

To anonymous- you must have misread that article because i was Erics classmate in grade school and in reality his FATHER Shawn, came to school and threatened to kill ME if i didnt do what he said and marry his son. So it wasnt that eric was threatening people it was that he was brought up in an enviornment where that was how they dealt with problems.

and to J.S. and to many other out there, you havent gotten the medias report not what acctually happened. Eric came to school with a gun to get people to listen to him about being bullied. Eric said he just wanted to talk and when Mr. Klang and Eric started walking to Klang's office Klang tackled him and was shot during the struggle due to Eric's shock and nerves. I just watched the move April Showers and in the credits the weston shooting was mentioned which brought back alot of memories. Yes it is sad the Klang lost his life and the outcome of Eric's trial was heartbreaking but last i heard Eric is excelling and has since become a Christian. no matter weather you think Eric is a cold blooded killer or a victim of the system remember this has effected many lives and fighting and being hurtful to each other will not change anything. Just keep Mr. Klangs students, family, school (and schools around the country) and Eric in your thoughts and prayers