Pistol-Packing Soccer Mom Sues Sheriff

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
It's a moot point now. Ironically, her law-abiding, gun-owning husband shot and killed her recently and then offed himself.

Yeah, I just saw that after I posted...even so I don't think she was in the wrong originally. Live by the gun, die by the gun. 😀

 

[AreaCode707]

The fact that bad things happened does not affect the fact that, at the original soccer game point in time, she had the constitutional and legal right to carry a weapon and was wrongfully arrested. Whether it was a good idea or bad idea for her to have a weapon, whether she was on the road to mental instability, whatever, none of that at the time affected her right to bear arms.

So what are we debating here? Whether her constitutional right SHOULD have been violated, and more than it was?

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: phoenix79

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: phoenix79
Its being reported that the kids ran out of the house screaming "daddy shot mommy" so it sounds like she wasn't the only nutjob in the house, it was her husband, the parole officer.

Fixed that for you. Emotionally stable people don't bring their handgun to the kid's soccer practice.

-EDIT- And I'm not saying she deserved to die, cause she didn't. But what kind of an ass do you have to be to pack heat to your kid's soccer practice?

Have you seen the statistics on carry permit issuances and handgun sales in the last 2-3 years? They have skyrocketed. I'd lay money that people carrying a gun to their kid's soccer game is something that happens regularly.

I'd lay money that the # of nutjobs has increased somewhat proportionally

 

[Analog]

Anti-gun people are going to have a field day on this one.

 

[Mide]

Well said Atomic.

 

[EricMartello]

Originally posted by: Analog
Anti-gun people are going to have a field day on this one.

So if he hacked his wife to death with a meat cleaver, would the anti-utensils people be having a field day? Ginsu may have to file for Chapter 11 yet again. 🙂

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Evidence? Support for this position?

What you've done here is project your own ignorance and fear onto the situation to create a 'them' that you're capable of internally discrediting in order to reinforce your own emotions and/or political positions. It's no different than inventing the red scare, or homophobia, or any other reactionary position to differences in opinion.

My support for this position? She was featured on the local news. Apparently they found it strange enough that she would open carry at a kids' soccer game that they felt it warranted air time. Less than a year later, she's dead from a homicide committed with a gun. It's a coincidence, but it's also pretty ironic.

I'd just like to say that this is speculative at best. You cannot know that's the reason they reported it. It's just as likely that as a business they're told to make a story out of any 'gun incident' that comes up because the sensationalism will drive up ratings (even if it's actually perfectly normal). There's also the possibility that it was politically motivated from a broad anti-gun agenda, or even from a pro-gun agenda and meant to garner support. Or maybe it was just an incredibly slow news day. There are any number of explanations for why the news carried the story.

I don't have a fear of guns. Ignorance, absolutely (I don't personally own a firearm, nor have I fired one). I don't care if people have concealed carry handguns; that's legal, and I firmly believe it should be (it's rare that the people legally carrying guns are the people using them to commit crimes). However, I think there are limits that any reasonable person should expect. I don't think it is reasonable for a person to attend a children's sporting event armed with a handgun. Here's my rationale:

People are irrational when it comes to their own children. I don't have kids of my own, but I've seen it with the sons and daughters of relatives. People will act to assure their own child's safety and success above all others, agreed? Now, we already have examples in this thread of people becoming irrational, getting agitated, even getting into fights at these events. I believe that wearing a clearly visible sidearm simply adds to a volatile mix that may end up in an irrational act of violence. You don't wear a sidearm to let other people know that you trust them; rather, you do it because you want them to know you don't trust them and are prepared to shoot them if they act up. I think this is a dangerous attitude to wear to an event where people already exhibit heightened states of irrationality because their children are there.

I object to the first generalization. I know many parents who are rational when it comes to their children. Yes, there are those who are not, but in what way does forming society around their dysfunction make sense, or help us as individuals or a nation?

As to the second point, I disagree firmly. People do NOT act to assure safety and success. People act according to psychological or natural behaviors. In most cases, people act CONTRARY to personal safety and success. People do drugs, people smoke, people speed, people have unprotected sex, people slack off, people watch TV rather than do safety drills in the home or with their kids, and so on ad infinitem.

For the final bolded topic, that is an unfounded opinion. For it to be considered you would have to provide data (or at least a rational argument) that demonstrates how this IS or WOULD BE the case. Instead what you've done is say "I'm afraid that this MIGHT BE true, and therefore I'm against it".

I also believe that images in the news of many, many school shootings in the past decade have made parents more sensitive to the very real possibility of their child becoming the victim of gun violence. I believe that same sensibility, sensationalized by the media, is going to cause an increase in irrational panic among parents when exposed to a firearm in the presence of their children. I believe that is the reason why the woman bringing a gun to the soccer game was on the news to begin with; other parents fearing for their own children's safety.

While I agree that the media sensationalization has added to that fear, the truth is that with gun violence declining so rapidly in this country (along with most crime) the possibility of victimization is declining. It still exists, yes, but if people made rational decisions they would know that it is less likely every year.

Again I have to ask why we would choose to support, encourage, or reward this irrationality? It's counter-productive to society, it's harmful to individuals, it's expensive, etc. If we believe we have a duty to publicly educate, and publicly supply 'news' don't we then inherently have a duty to attempt to encourage knowledge and rationality?

That's a volatile combination. Irrational people picturing their own child harmed by a gun will react more strongly to seeing one at an event where their children are. That's going to create heightened tension, which is only going to increase the chance of irrational violence breaking out, which is just going to see a greater likelihood that the gun is actually drawn. If everyone in society were completely rational, I still wouldn't think it was a good idea to wear a gun to a kids' sporting event, but given the inherent irrationality parents go to in their attempts to protect their children, it is illogical and potentially incendiary to strap on a firearm for your child's soccer practice. There are laws prohibiting guns in schools, courthouses and federal buildings... maybe children's soccer practice should be added to the list.

Ok, that has two fundamental flaws. First, you only draw a gun when it's life threatening. People who carry almost always know this and almost always obey it. Yes, there are incidents to the contrary, but they are statistical outliers. Second, you are presuming to act on behalf of irrationality to inhibit rationality and lawful endeavors. In other words you're saying that all of society must exist ONLY to appease the craziest, stupidest person. Laws don't matter, Constitutions don't matter, justice doesn't matter, intelligence doesn't matter, facts don't matter...the ONLY THING that matters (according to your logic) is how ignorant, irrational, and upset someone is.

The second part is way far removed from this topic because of its intricacies, but I'll try to touch on it just a bit. First, there is a HUGE difference between state/local and federal laws, and a difference of opinion about how they should even function. Second, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's right or rational. By Constitutional decree and in statutory practice slavery was legal, interfering with it was not, wives could be beaten by husbands, oral sex is illegal, and other things like that. Claiming that we should make another stupid law because there are already stupid laws isn't helping a debate against irrationality. Within the existing framework however:

federal buildings are exempted because there is no federal oversight of firearm licensing and training (meaning the feds can't be sure how well trained or vetted people carrying weapons legally in that state are), and because many/most federal buildings are secured locations with controlled access points and armed security. Courthouses are again secured locations with controlled access points and armed security. In these two instances another entity has taken direct responsibility for your protection, and has taken steps to minimize the chance of danger.

schools are not exactly off-limits. In fact, within the federal anti-gun legislation there are allowances for concealed carry. While the states have chosen to clamp those down, there are questions as to their constitutionality and statutory validity. You will also find that rules vary widely from place to place, with some 'schools' allowing faculty to carry in some instances, and so on. A prohibition on kids carrying is ridiculous, since they're already prohibited from carrying due to their age. Moreover any prohibition against carrying to prevent a criminal act is laughable since the penalty for violating a gun-free school zone is relatively minor, and the penalty for shooting someone with that gun is often life imprisonment or the death penalty. In other words, the ONLY thing the laws against carrying in schools do is prevent law abiding citizens from carrying a defensive weapon which is almost never used negatively anyway.

As for my political position? Guns should be legal, concealed carry should be legal, open carry should be legal, but we should have strict licensing tests to prevent guns ending up in the hands of irresponsible or batshit crazy people. I don't care if my neighbor has a fully automatic MP5 with a silencer, laser sight and night vision scope; I just want him to exercise some common sense in where he chooses to carry it.

You commit a logical error here, in suggesting that the place where someone carries could possibly be an illogical decision. I would argue that you must PROVE that to be true before you suggest restriction of guaranteed freedoms. Otherwise you are saying there are only some places it's reasonable to exercise free speech, only some places you're free from unreasonable searches, only some places you're free from arrest or where the states have power or where unreasonable punishments are prohibited. (actually that does seem to be the attitude of modern America, but I'm arguing against exactly that type of irrationality).

I wonder, did this woman check with the other parents before she wore her gun to the game? If she had done that and they had agreed, then I have no problem with it; that's their right as parents. But it doesn't sound like she did that. She just showed up and expected everyone to be OK with it. I think that's acting a bit douchey towards the other parents who may, for whatever reason, not want their children exposed to handguns in the park.

Why would she? They have no power or authority in the matter. EVERY citizen is bound EQUALLY under the laws of this nation, as well as the RIGHTS of this nation. Anyone who disagrees can try to change them, but until they do they ABSOLUTELY MUST ACCEPT IT. Period. People can disagree with what she did and try to change the law, but that doesn't give them the right to discriminate against HER for doing what she is entitled to do.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: phoenix79

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: phoenix79
Its being reported that the kids ran out of the house screaming "daddy shot mommy" so it sounds like she wasn't the only nutjob in the house, it was her husband, the parole officer.

Fixed that for you. Emotionally stable people don't bring their handgun to the kid's soccer practice.

-EDIT- And I'm not saying she deserved to die, cause she didn't. But what kind of an ass do you have to be to pack heat to your kid's soccer practice?

Have you seen the statistics on carry permit issuances and handgun sales in the last 2-3 years? They have skyrocketed. I'd lay money that people carrying a gun to their kid's soccer game is something that happens regularly.

I'd lay money that the # of nutjobs has increased somewhat proportionally

If 40% of the population are nutjobs then what good is arming more of them going to do?

 

[thegimp03]

Sucks for the kids.

 

[caspur]

From CNN: It appears she is now dead.

 

[keird]

CNN

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania soccer mom was chatting with a friend via webcam when she was shot to death by her husband, who then went upstairs and shot himself, police said Friday.

Pistol-packing soccer mom Meleanie Hain was shot dead while chatting with a friend on a webcam, police said.

Meleanie Hain, 31, made national headlines last year as the mother who carried a loaded, holstered handgun to her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game.

She was found dead in her Lebanon, Pennsylvania, home along with her husband, Scott Hain, 33, on Wednesday evening, Lebanon police said.

Hain was in her kitchen talking with a friend via webcam just before her death, police said.

The friend, who police will not name, was looking away from the computer screen when he heard a shot and a scream, police said. He turned back to the monitor, he told police, and no longer saw Meleanie Hain but instead saw Scott Hain firing several rounds from a handgun toward where his wife had been.

Police said that the woman's body had already fallen to the floor by the time the friend turned back to the screen.

Scott Hain then went upstairs to a bedroom, where he shot himself in the head with a 12-gauge shotgun, police said.

Meleanie Hain was shot several times with a 9 mm handgun, police said. Her fully loaded 9 mm handgun was found in her backpack hanging on the back of the front door.

The couple's three children were home at the time of the killings, police Capt. Daniel Wright said. They were unharmed and took refuge at a neighbor's house before police arrived, he said.

Investigators have confiscated the webcam and computer, but cannot review what the friend says he saw because the online conversation was not recorded.

The death of the couple came four months after Meleanie Hain told her attorney she was separating from her husband, her attorney, Matthew B. Weisberg, told CNN Thursday. However, police said the couple still appeared to be living together.

Meleanie Hain drew media attention on September 11, 2008, when she carried a Glock strapped to her belt to her daughter's soccer game.

Nine days later her permit to carry a gun was revoked by Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo, who claimed she showed poor judgment by wearing the weapon to a child's game. County Judge Robert Eby later reinstated the permit.