Eric Hainstock on Trial

It's really murderer Eric Hainstock's only defense.

His lawyer presented Hainstock as an angry young man that had been abused and neglected, but he didn't mean to kill anyone.

He was really a victim.

That's a tough sell.

BARABOO, Wis. -- A 16-year-old charged with shooting his high school principal to death didn't mean to kill him, and had brought two guns to school only to scare people, his attorney said Friday at his murder trial.

The prosecution, however, said during opening statements that Eric Hainstock's anger at Weston Schools Principal John Klang had been building. Two teenagers testified that Hainstock told them that Weston Schools Principal John Klang Klang wouldn't survive homecoming.

Hainstock is charged with killing Klang on Sept. 29, the morning homecoming festivities were set to begin. Investigators say Hainstock took his father's shotgun and a revolver to school because he was upset Klang and teachers hadn't stopped other kids from teasing him.

According to a criminal complaint, after a custodian took the shotgun from Hainstock, the student took out the revolver and Klang, 49, rushed him. Hainstock shot Klang three times before the dying principal wrestled him to the ground and pushed the gun away, the complaint said.

Hainstock's lead attorney, Rhoda Ricciardi, told jurors in opening statements there's no dispute Hainstock killed Klang. But he didn't mean to, she said.

She portrayed Hainstock as a lonely country boy who was teased relentlessly, labeled a "fag" by his fellow students and beaten and abused at home.

"This case is about a troubled boy from a troubled home who found nothing but trouble at school," Ricciardi said.

District Attorney Pat Barrett maintained that Hainstock's anger toward Klang had been building for two weeks before homecoming.

Barrett noted Klang kicked Hainstock out of school for three days after Hainstock threw a stapler at his special education teacher. Klang also gave Hainstock an in-school suspension after Klang found chewing tobacco in the boy's backpack.

Alyssa Fultz, 15, testified that Hainstock told her in a church youth group meeting about a week and a half before the shooting that Klang wouldn't survive homecoming.

"He just said the principal was not listening to him and people were just being mean to him," she said. She thought little of the statement at the time, she said.

Nicole Spurgeon, 16, testified Hainstock was at her house doing homework with her brother days before the shooting when she overheard Hainstock say Klang wouldn't make it through homecoming.

So who is the victim here?

Hainstock's lawyers want the jury to see Hainstock as a victim, too. Their case rests on the notion that Hainstock was a victim.

Yes, he killed Klang, but he didn't want to do it.

Hainstock's family abused him and supposedly teachers ignored his cries for help.

So it's the failures of social services and the school system that brought about Klang's death?

I don't buy that.

If Hainstock really only wanted to scare people at school, then he wouldn't have fired the shotgun THREE times.

...Ricciardi told jurors that Hainstock never developed coping skills and suffers from attention deficit disorder, which his father refused to medicate. She said Hainstock's father often made the boy wait on him, made him do all the household chores and sometimes beating him.

His stepbrother had sexually abused him until he was 6 years old, Ricciardi said.

Hainstock's frustrations just boiled over on Sept. 29, she said.

"He runs on emotion," she said. "He stupidly and recklessly brings guns to school."

The strategy is to paint Hainstock as a sympathetic figure.

It seems that Hainstock did suffer. His family situation was bad. Being bullied at school compounded his frustration.

As sad as his situation was, that didn't give him license to kill.

Hainstock's circumstances may have been the reason he chose to do what he did, but a reason is not the same as an excuse for doing something.

And if he really just wanted to scare people and get attention, then he could have brought UNLOADED guns to school. He could have made his threats and get his point across without putting others at risk.

That's not what he chose to do. He chose to fire his gun THREE times and kill John Klang.