Verified by 
Mass Shootings
Analyzing the Latest Legal Outcome for a Shooter’s Parents
A jury found parents of a shooter not liable but attitudes continue to shift.
Posted September 5, 2024 Reviewed by Gary Drevitch
On August 20, a Texas jury found Antonios Pagourtzis and Rose Marie Kosmetatos—the parents of the shooter involved in the 2018 Santa Fe High School massacre—not liable for negligence in the civil suit brought against them. The ruling stands in contrast to the April 2024 criminal conviction of Jennifer and James Crumbley—parents of the Oxford (Michigan) High School shooter—who were found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to at least 10 years in prison.
There were differences in the nature of these cases but each offers insight into why the juries ruled in different ways. In the case against Mr. Pagourtzis and Ms. Kosmetatos, prosecutors made a strong argument with regard to how the couple improperly stored the firearms that their son used in the shooting. Still, defense lawyers argued that there was little indication that the parents understood their son suffered from severe mental health issues, including depression.
In the civil case, the plaintiffs didn’t offer the same kinds of glaring red flags that were front-and-center in the case against the Crumbleys. These included the Crumbleys laughing off their son’s online searches for ammunition; refusing his requests for professional help managing intrusive thoughts; and declining to take him out of class even after the school shared drawings by him depicting a gun and a person bleeding, along with the phrases, “the thoughts won’t stop,” “help me,” and “blood everywhere.”
Hopefully, the the vast majority of parents never show the same level of utter negligence as the Crumbleys regardless of whether they have an affinity for weapons. It might even make gun-owning parents feel more protected, especially in light of the recent verdict in Texas. As a mental health attorney, it is my strong professional recommendation that such parents avoid complacency and stay highly attuned to changing attitudes and verdicts regarding the legal liabilities tied to gun ownership.
In the case against Mr. Pagourtzis and Ms. Kosmetatos, prosecutors said in their opening statements, “Parents of a depressed child should safely store their guns. If they don’t, and their child commits a school shooting with them, the parents share in the responsibility for those harms and losses.”
There is real reason to believe more individuals and lawmakers are coming around to this perspective after years of tragedies claiming the lives of innocent children and dedicated educators. In his remarks at the recent Democratic National Convention, Governor Tim Walz accepted his nomination for Vice President after saying that while he knows guns well and has trophies to prove his wins at shooting competitions, his first responsibility as a father is keeping kids safe from guns. The Republican Party could also be shifting its stance, having dropped some gun-rights promises from its 2024 platform.
We remain a country divided in our perspectives about gun ownership, but we all fear the nightmare that an isolated, angry, and armed individual might claim the life of a loved one. I believe this fear is evolving our society’s understanding of the legal obligations that come with gun ownership—a fact that parents should begin waking up to.
In Georgia today, in the wake of our latest mass school shooting, these issues will continue to evolve. When will we as a society finally learn from them?
