Gun-toting soccer mom is shot dead in Lebanon, PA

[big john]

Meleanie Hain, the pistol-carrying Lebanon mom who received national attention for taking a loaded gun to her daughter’s soccer game, was shot to death Wednesday night with her husband in an apparent murder-suicide, police said.


Hain, 31, and her husband, Scott, 33, were pronounced dead by Lebanon County Coroner Dr. Jeffrey Yocum shortly after 8:30 p.m. at their home at Second Avenue and East Grant Street, police said.

The couple’s three children were home at the time and were not injured, and are staying with relatives and friends, police said.

Autopsies were scheduled for Thursday, police said. No other details were available at press time.

Neighbor Mark Long said Meleanie baby-sat his 3-year-old son and that she and Scott had been having marital problems for the last week. Scott left on Tuesday and Meleanie did not know where he went, but he came back Wednesday, Long said.

Meleanie Hain was thrust into the national spotlight when she took a gun, in plain view and holstered on her hip, to a soccer game Sept. 11, 2008, at Optimist Park in Lebanon.

Her permit to carry a gun was revoked by Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo on Sept. 20, 2008. DeLeo said Hain showed poor judgment in wearing her gun to the game.

Hain’s permit was reinstated by Lebanon County Judge Robert Eby on Oct. 14, 2008, but the judge asked her to conceal it when she goes to soccer games. Hain said she would continue to carry it openly under the Second Amendment.

Hain then filed a lawsuit against DeLeo for $1 million in U.S. Middle District Court seeking reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs, emotional distress and lost wages.

"She has been stigmatized unfairly," her attorney, Matthew Weisberg said at the time.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence then offered to defend DeLeo for free.

Daniel Vice, a senior attorney for the Brady Center, said at the time: "It is a case that calls out for common sense. ... It’s ridiculous to bring a gun to a child’s soccer game."

A hearing on Hain’s suit was postponed in May after one of the attorneys in the case was involved in an auto accident.

In an interview with The Patriot-News published Dec. 27, Hain said: "I am happy being a gun owner."

She said she had no intention of changing her views on gun ownership and noted her critics had no intention of changing theirs.

She acknowledged the publicity had detrimentally affected her life. "I have read all sorts of slander, personal attacks, and even threats toward me, my family, and, yes, some specific to my children," she said in the interview.

"The publicity surrounding me as a person makes me feel awkward and uncomfortable. As stated previously, I am willing to talk to the press because the issue is so important, but the focus on me, personally, has been difficult because it simply is not about me," she said.

About the decision to sue DeLeo, Hain said she did it because she was wronged

"Just the fact that he was wrong is evidenced by the fact that my license was restored to me. ... I am a victim of Sheriff Michael DeLeo’s. I am a victim of those in society as a direct result of his actions as well. The way people look at me sometimes when I am out running errands, I feel as if I am wearing a scarlet letter, and really it’s a Glock 26."

[ScarletB]

I know I'll get flamed by someone for this but my thought is - yeah owning a gun makes it really convenient to make good choices in the heat of the moment thereby leaving your children orphaned and most likely pretty traumatized. I will always feel that if the gun isn't in the house in the first place when someone flips out there's at least a chance it will end better. Of course one has to wonder what's going on in someone's head who feels it's necessary to wear a gun to a kids soccer game. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - was she afraid that her husband was trying to harm her? In which case having the gun didn't help anyway did it?

I guess I'll never "get" it.

[flyboy55]

. . . Hain successfully appealed the permit revocation, although the judge who restored the permit questioned her judgment and said she had "scared the devil" out of other people at the game.

Hain sued DeLeo in federal court, alleging that he violated her constitutional rights and prosecuted her maliciously when he took the permit away. She said that because of his actions her baby-sitting service had suffered, her children had been harassed and she had been ostracized by her neighbors in Lebanon, which has about 25,000 residents.

DeLeo said at Hain's appeal that he revoked her permit after fielding the parents' complaints. He said he based his decision on a state law that prohibits certain gun permits from being given to anyone whose character and reputation make him or her a danger to public safety.

Sad day for this young couple and their orphaned children and extended family, but with regard to problems outside her marriage, I believe she was the author of her own misfortune. It was unfair of her to blame her community relations problems on the local sheriff. Her problems with the community started to heat up when she decided to strap on a sidearm to attend a kids' soccer game. If she wanted to make a statement, her behavior might have been more appropriate for a Health Care Reform Town Hall meeting in Arizona or something along those lines.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33220258/ns ... nd_courts/

[SchoolGirlHeart]

A tragic event, no matter how you look at it.

Did she have the right to carry her gun to that game? Yes. Was it wise? I can't answer that... If she was doing so simply to make a statement, no, it was not wise. If she felt she was in imminent danger from someone perhaps it was warranted. Can't say, since I don't know the circumstances. If she was in danger it would seem that a concealed carry permit might have been a better way to go.

I'm not at all surprised her day care business suffered. I advocate responsible gun ownership and yet I would not have been comfortable sending my child to a home daycare where there were guns present. I don't see that as hypocritical; I know the guns in my house (which I carried for work at various times) were locked up tight. Not knowing how securely others may or may not have stored their firearms, I would not want my children cared for in that home.

As far as someone flipping out, in that situation a steak knife can be just as deadly...

[ragtopW]

A tragic event, no matter how you look at it.



As far as someone flipping out, in that situation a steak knife can be just as deadly...

Very Tragic..
Do you know how many of those Car accidents are Murder /Suicide??
"couple hits bridge abutment at 80" think about it..
AND unless one of them was on the phone or left a note no way does it even
get investigated....

[RinglingRingling]

A tragic event, no matter how you look at it.

Did she have the right to carry her gun to that game? Yes. Was it wise? I can't answer that... If she was doing so simply to make a statement, no, it was not wise. If she felt she was in imminent danger from someone perhaps it was warranted. Can't say, since I don't know the circumstances. If she was in danger it would seem that a concealed carry permit might have been a better way to go.

I'm not at all surprised her day care business suffered. I advocate responsible gun ownership and yet I would not have been comfortable sending my child to a home daycare where there were guns present. I don't see that as hypocritical; I know the guns in my house (which I carried for work at various times) were locked up tight. Not knowing how securely others may or may not have stored their firearms, I would not want my children cared for in that home.

As far as someone flipping out, in that situation a steak knife can be just as deadly...

a) nah.. most steak knives (unless you are using the really expensive German ones) are cheap steel and bend or snap when they hit a bone..
b) "victim"? Ironic that she would use that term, given the mindset of members of that general socio-political mindset when others use the term.

I am sorry for kids. Losing both parents (or losing one parent to the idiocy of the other depending on how you look at it) isn't going to make their lives easier.

[ph4ever]

I know I'll get flamed by someone for this but my thought is - yeah owning a gun makes it really convenient to make good choices in the heat of the moment thereby leaving your children orphaned and most likely pretty traumatized. I will always feel that if the gun isn't in the house in the first place when someone flips out there's at least a chance it will end better. Of course one has to wonder what's going on in someone's head who feels it's necessary to wear a gun to a kids soccer game. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - was she afraid that her husband was trying to harm her? In which case having the gun didn't help anyway did it?

I guess I'll never "get" it.

Is is just handguns you're against or is it all guns? I ask this because I do know some gun owners that have no use for handguns but have shotguns and rifles out the wazoo. There are certain areas in the country where if you don't have a shotgun or rifle you're pretty much an idiot. For example a rancher needs a shotgun/rifle to protect his livestock against whatever wild predatory animals in his area - be it cougars, coyotes or even rattlesnakes when you're talking about your family. I grew up in rattlesnake territory and I knew to freeze immediately if I even heard the rattle going off and I've had a snake shot nearby. Then there's the obvious need for having a firearm to hunt to put food on your table.

Let me also say, I'm not trying to change your mind to be pro firearm but rather maybe help you gain an understanding.

As far handguns go and this case, perhaps she had to drive through a bad part of her town to get to the soccer game? There are just so many reasons as to why a person carries a handgun. I know I started carrying when I worked nights at a mall that had several reported rapes and attacks on women leaving work. Then I did part time couriering of loose diamonds from one jewelry store to another. I don't agree with wearing a gun to a kid's soccer game. Take the gun with you, leave it locked in the car. It was extremely poor judgment on her part. One thing that wasn’t stated in this story: Was she killed with her gun or did he bring one home to kill her?

I can say this – I can’t wait to get back to a state that has a castle doctrine. I am of the firm belief that if I someone breaks into my home with the intent to rob or do my family harm I should be able to shoot them dead. If I pull into my driveway and I see someone running from my home with my possessions I should be able to shoot them dead. Here in Washington there’s no castle doctrine and I really hate that a homeowner isn’t able to protect themselves or their possessions. To me that is complete and utter bs.

[SchoolGirlHeart]

A little more info:

"Daddy shot Mommy!" was yelled by children running from the Hain house early last evening, neighbors told the Lebanon Daily News.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/break ... _dead.html

I dunno, maybe she did have reason to be afraid and carry a gun... Her husband worked in law enforcement; the article didn't say whose gun was involved in the shooting.

And from another article:

Gun-carrying soccer mom Meleanie Hain, who died with her husband in what police are calling a murder-suicide, had been separated from her husband and was considering filing a protection-from-abuse order against him, her lawyer said today.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... ain_h.html

[ph4ever]

A little more info:

"Daddy shot Mommy!" was yelled by children running from the Hain house early last evening, neighbors told the Lebanon Daily News.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/break ... _dead.html

I dunno, maybe she did have reason to be afraid and carry a gun... Her husband worked in law enforcement; the article didn't say whose gun was involved in the shooting.

And from another article:

Gun-carrying soccer mom Meleanie Hain, who died with her husband in what police are calling a murder-suicide, had been separated from her husband and was considering filing a protection-from-abuse order against him, her lawyer said today.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... ain_h.html

edit - I misread that originally. You're right Jen

[ScarletB]

I know I'll get flamed by someone for this but my thought is - yeah owning a gun makes it really convenient to make good choices in the heat of the moment thereby leaving your children orphaned and most likely pretty traumatized. I will always feel that if the gun isn't in the house in the first place when someone flips out there's at least a chance it will end better. Of course one has to wonder what's going on in someone's head who feels it's necessary to wear a gun to a kids soccer game. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - was she afraid that her husband was trying to harm her? In which case having the gun didn't help anyway did it?

I guess I'll never "get" it.

Is is just handguns you're against or is it all guns? I ask this because I do know some gun owners that have no use for handguns but have shotguns and rifles out the wazoo. There are certain areas in the country where if you don't have a shotgun or rifle you're pretty much an idiot. For example a rancher needs a shotgun/rifle to protect his livestock against whatever wild predatory animals in his area - be it cougars, coyotes or even rattlesnakes when you're talking about your family. I grew up in rattlesnake territory and I knew to freeze immediately if I even heard the rattle going off and I've had a snake shot nearby. Then there's the obvious need for having a firearm to hunt to put food on your table.

Let me also say, I'm not trying to change your mind to be pro firearm but rather maybe help you gain an understanding.

As far handguns go and this case, perhaps she had to drive through a bad part of her town to get to the soccer game? There are just so many reasons as to why a person carries a handgun. I know I started carrying when I worked nights at a mall that had several reported rapes and attacks on women leaving work. Then I did part time couriering of loose diamonds from one jewelry store to another. I don't agree with wearing a gun to a kid's soccer game. Take the gun with you, leave it locked in the car. It was extremely poor judgment on her part. One thing that wasn’t stated in this story: Was she killed with her gun or did he bring one home to kill her?

I can say this – I can’t wait to get back to a state that has a castle doctrine. I am of the firm belief that if I someone breaks into my home with the intent to rob or do my family harm I should be able to shoot them dead. If I pull into my driveway and I see someone running from my home with my possessions I should be able to shoot them dead. Here in Washington there’s no castle doctrine and I really hate that a homeowner isn’t able to protect themselves or their possessions. To me that is complete and utter bs.

No I'm not totally anti gun, the circumstances you mentioned are cases where you absolutely need a gun, including the one you carried for your personal safety in a known unsafe area OR the fact that you were carrying things that clearly someone would want. And of course if you hunt (and hopefully consume what you shoot instead of just hanging it on your wall) that's not a problem for me either. What I dont' get is people who feel it's necessary to have an arsenal and IMHO no one needs a semi-automatic or whatever gun shoots armour piercing bullets or some such. (I don't even know enough about it to say what kind but anything that could bring down a small army to me is unnecessary for private ownership. I can even understand a small handgun for self defense in your home (though I'm really not sure I could shoot someone) but this country's love affair with guns for the sake of having a gun has always puzzled me.

[ph4ever]

No I'm not totally anti gun, the circumstances you mentioned are cases where you absolutely need a gun, including the one you carried for your personal safety in a known unsafe area OR the fact that you were carrying things that clearly someone would want. And of course if you hunt (and hopefully consume what you shoot instead of just hanging it on your wall) that's not a problem for me either. What I dont' get is people who feel it's necessary to have an arsenal and IMHO no one needs a semi-automatic or whatever gun shoots armour piercing bullets or some such. (I don't even know enough about it to say what kind but anything that could bring down a small army to me is unnecessary for private ownership. I can even understand a small handgun for self defense in your home (though I'm really not sure I could shoot someone) but this country's love affair with guns for the sake of having a gun has always puzzled me.

Ok and thanks! I can completely understand where you are coming from with the small arsenal (or large arsenal for that matter) and to a certain degree I can understand where you are coming from with a semi-automatic. I do know people that are gun collectors. I guess the love affair with guns for the sake of having a gun in some cases is like any collectable item. Most of the collectors I've known are fascinated with them and have old and new guns, some are semi-automatic. Heck my ex BIL owned an Uzi (purchased legally) not to go out and kill someone but because he's just really into guns. I used to be of the mindset that there was no reason to have the semi-automatics however with the ever increasing crime rate, and the fact that the "bad" guys actually have stronger weapons than the police, I can actually see the possible need to own one if you plan to use it strictly for protection, target practice etc. I also feel that our police forces should be able to fully arm themselves with fully automatic weapons.

On a side note - one time when I was in Boise Santa, Don and I went to the Old State Prison for a tour. Part of the prison tour is a 5 million dollar exhibit of weaponry dating back to something like 3500BC. It was a good historic example of items used in warfare. We were in there for quite a while, and I swear I saw Wayne drool more than once. The gentleman that originally collected these weapons was just a guy who became interested in weaponry when he was a child and found his first arrowhead. http://www.idahohistory.net/earl.html

[ScarletB]

No I'm not totally anti gun, the circumstances you mentioned are cases where you absolutely need a gun, including the one you carried for your personal safety in a known unsafe area OR the fact that you were carrying things that clearly someone would want. And of course if you hunt (and hopefully consume what you shoot instead of just hanging it on your wall) that's not a problem for me either. What I dont' get is people who feel it's necessary to have an arsenal and IMHO no one needs a semi-automatic or whatever gun shoots armour piercing bullets or some such. (I don't even know enough about it to say what kind but anything that could bring down a small army to me is unnecessary for private ownership. I can even understand a small handgun for self defense in your home (though I'm really not sure I could shoot someone) but this country's love affair with guns for the sake of having a gun has always puzzled me.

Ok and thanks! I can completely understand where you are coming from with the small arsenal (or large arsenal for that matter) and to a certain degree I can understand where you are coming from with a semi-automatic. I do know people that are gun collectors. I guess the love affair with guns for the sake of having a gun in some cases is like any collectable item. Most of the collectors I've known are fascinated with them and have old and new guns, some are semi-automatic. Heck my ex BIL owned an Uzi (purchased legally) not to go out and kill someone but because he's just really into guns. I used to be of the mindset that there was no reason to have the semi-automatics however with the ever increasing crime rate, and the fact that the "bad" guys actually have stronger weapons than the police, I can actually see the possible need to own one if you plan to use it strictly for protection, target practice etc. I also feel that our police forces should be able to fully arm themselves with fully automatic weapons.

On a side note - one time when I was in Boise Santa, Don and I went to the Old State Prison for a tour. Part of the prison tour is a 5 million dollar exhibit of weaponry dating back to something like 3500BC. It was a good historic example of items used in warfare. We were in there for quite a while, and I swear I saw Wayne drool more than once. The gentleman that originally collected these weapons was just a guy who became interested in weaponry when he was a child and found his first arrowhead. http://www.idahohistory.net/earl.html

I'm all for police having whatever they need for sure, I pretty much don't care what it is!
I live in a fairly low crime area (now watch my house get robbed tomorrow right?) so I don't think about it much but it would be different if I lived in a city I'm sure.

[Elrod]

So sad that the children have lost both of their parents.

[Hockey Mon]

I do know people that are gun collectors. I guess the love affair with guns for the sake of having a gun in some cases is like any collectable item. Most of the collectors I've known are fascinated with them and have old and new guns, some are semi-automatic. Heck my ex BIL owned an Uzi (purchased legally) not to go out and kill someone but because he's just really into guns.

I like to collect coins. I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. I thought that would be a funny thing to say.

Very sad incident. No child should have to go through life parent-less.

[SchoolGirlHeart]

Wow.... Just wow......

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...

... 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.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/09/gun ... index.html

[Y-NO-9-O]

If I pull into my driveway and I see someone running from my home with my possessions I should be able to shoot them dead.

If you are in no imminent danger, are your possessions more important than a human life? I am not questioning anything else you said, just this specific statement. If someone is running out of your house with your tv, do you believe you should have the right to shoot them dead?
Just curious.

[ph4ever]

If I pull into my driveway and I see someone running from my home with my possessions I should be able to shoot them dead.

If you are in no imminent danger, are your possessions more important than a human life? I am not questioning anything else you said, just this specific statement. If someone is running out of your house with your tv, do you believe you should have the right to shoot them dead?
Just curious.

Let me preface my answer by saying I was raised in Texas.

My answer is yes I feel anyone should have that right. In Texas and several other states - you do have that right.

Would I just shoot first? No. I'd take cover, tell them to freeze and if they didn't then I would shoot them. I was trained that if you shoot you shoot to kill.

[Y-NO-9-O]

Let me preface my answer by saying I was raised in Texas.

So?

My answer is yes I feel anyone should have that right. In Texas and several other states - you do have that right.

Would I just shoot first? No. I'd take cover, tell them to freeze and if they didn't then I would shoot them. I was trained that if you shoot you shoot to kill.

Sorry, I still don't get it. If a person is running (not at you in a threatening way, just running) with your possessions and they don't freeze when you say to freeze, you feel you have the right to KILL them. Take a human life. That is what you believe? You must have some real good s***!

[ph4ever]

Let me preface my answer by saying I was raised in Texas.

So?

My answer is yes I feel anyone should have that right. In Texas and several other states - you do have that right.

Would I just shoot first? No. I'd take cover, tell them to freeze and if they didn't then I would shoot them. I was trained that if you shoot you shoot to kill.

Sorry, I still don't get it. If a person is running (not at you in a threatening way, just running) with your possessions and they don't freeze when you say to freeze, you feel you have the right to KILL them. Take a human life. That is what you believe? You must have some real good s***!

I think I was pretty clear with my statements. It doesn't matter how good my s**t is - it's my s**t. I worked hard to obtain it. If I'm in a state that has a castle doctrine I'll be damned if I just stand there and watch some punk who is probably robbing from me to support his drug habit run off with my posessions. I personally know other BN'ers who share my views and opinions on the Castle Doctrine in their respective states. That's just how I feel and I don't think I need to justify or explain my position any further. It may be hard for you to understand - for me it's not.

[Elrod]

If a person is running (not at you in a threatening way, just running) with your possessions and they don't freeze when you say to freeze, you feel you have the right to KILL them.

I would be embarrassed as hell that I missed him on the way in.