Hainstock: "I didn't plan to hurt nobody"

Eric Hainstock took the stand on Wednesday in his own defense.

BARABOO, Wis. -- A 16-year-old boy charged with murdering his school principal testified Wednesday that he brought a shotgun and revolver to school not to kill the man, but to make him stop kids from teasing him.

Eric Hainstock is charged with first-degree murder and could face life in prison if convicted. Hainstock shot Weston Schools Principal John Klang on Sept. 29 as Klang struggled to wrestle the gun from the boy.

Prosecutors must prove that Hainstock intended to kill Klang the moment he pulled the trigger. Hainstock's attorneys asked the boy repeatedly if he meant to kill the principal.

"No, I didn't," Hainstock said. "I didn't plan to hurt nobody."

Sauk County District Attorney Pat Barrett claims Hainstock was a bully himself and angry at Klang because the principal twice suspended him in the days leading up to the shooting on the morning of homecoming.

But Hainstock's attorneys contend he suffers from attention deficit disorder, was abused at home and endured endless teasing at school while Klang and teachers looked the other way.

Attention deficit disorder, being abused at home, and endless teasing aren't excuses to bring LOADED guns to school and kill the principal.

Will prosecutors be able to prove that when Hainstock pulled the trigger he intended to kill Klang?

I think when someone brings a loaded gun to a school and threatens people with it and pulls the trigger three times, his intention to do harm is pretty clear.

If Hainstock didn't want to shoot Klang, then he would not have pulled the trigger.

...In a flat tone, Hainstock testified he transferred to Weston Schools as a sixth grader.

...Kids there stuck his head in the toilet, stuffed him in lockers, threw him in the bushes and called him names, he said.

Klang started as principal when Hainstock was a seventh-grader and became a confidant, Hainstock said. But Klang didn't stop the teasing, the boy said.

That's awful.

Bullying is such a cruel thing.

I do feel sorry for what Hainstock endured. However, I have no sympathy for him when it comes to what he did last September 29.

Zero.

Hainstock, then a 15-year-old freshman, was about to drive the family's truck to school because he missed the bus. He grabbed a shotgun from his father's gun cabinet and a .22-caliber revolver from his father's bedroom and loaded them, thinking that if people were scared, they'd listen to him.

Helland asked why he loaded the weapons.

"I don't know," he replied. "Just a reaction."

"Just a reaction"?

That's not a good answer.

I'd like to know why Hainstock had access to these guns and ammunition.

When guns are in the home, locking them up isn't just necessary to keep them out of the hands of very young children. No one but the owner should have access to them.

He told everyone in the school entrance, "Everybody get in the (expletive) office. I'm not (expletive) kidding. This is serious."

A janitor tore the shotgun away from him. Hainstock said he spun away, pulled out the revolver and cocked it. He wanted to make people think he was ready to shoot so they would "clear out."

He told Klang to go in the office to talk. He turned around and Klang jumped him, wrapping him in a bear hug and tugging at his gun arm.

Hainstock initially told police he fired all three shots on purpose, but testified he only said that because he was scared during the interview with detectives and knew he had done a terrible thing. He said the first shot was an accident.

Hainstock acted like he was ready to kill. The janitor and Klang put themselves in danger to disarm him. Klang paid with his life to save others. He did a selfless, heroic thing.

I believe that Hainstock was scared while being questioned by detectives.

It would make more sense that his fear would prompt him to insist that it was all an accident. Being scared wouldn't cause him to say he fired all the shots on purpose if he didn't.

Weird.

After that he "freaked out" and fired again, this time on purpose, hoping to hit Klang in the arm and make him let go.

The gun went off a third time during the struggle, he said.

"The blood was falling on me and stuff like that," Hainstock said. "I'm in shock ... I didn't think Mr. Klang was going to die. I hoped not."

Hainstock says he intended to shoot Klang in the arm. Sure.

In the midst of a struggle, he fires the gun and expects the bullet to hit Klang's arm. That's ridiculous.

He admits to "freaking out" and then he wants the jury to believe that he regained his composure to be rational enough to plan to shoot Klang in the arm.

Hainstock says he "freaked out," yet he's doing all this thinking and hoping.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

In her cross-examination, Barrett did not ask Hainstock about the day of the shooting. Instead, she rattled off a number of things Hainstock was accused of over the years, including calling teachers names, knocking a student's tooth out, and snapping another student in the head with a rubber band. He agreed the incidents happened.

I think it was a good idea for Barrett to take the opportunity to get Hainstock to admit that he acted out. He owned up to his history of bullying and violent behavior.

In effect, Hainstock himself negated his image as a victim. He was abused, but he responded by being abusive.

He wasn't a poor kid, tormented so mercilessly that he finally snapped.

Plain and simple, if he really "didn't plan to hurt nobody," he wouldn't have loaded the guns.