When Parents of School Shooters Face Legal Liabilities

Source: Ben White / Unsplash

After years of school shootings, a shift has finally emerged in how we as a country, and crucially the legal system, perceives the accountability of gun owners, specifically parents. Colin Gray, father of the 14-year-old who killed four people and injured nine others in the latest massacre at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, has been charged with two counts of second-degree murder, four counts of involuntary manslaughter and eight counts of cruelty to children.

While Mr. Gray did not pull the trigger, he told authorities that he purchased the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle for his son as a holiday present in December 2023, just months after authorities contacted the father regarding an investigation that his son had made online threats to “shoot up a middle school.”

Amidst today’s epidemic of gun violence, I consider it necessary and appropriate to call this negligence what it is—a crime. Mr. Gray’s actions have had a direct and tragic impact on his community and his own child, who needed immediate, compassionate mental health care, not a deadly firearm.

What happens next is uncertain, but we’ve already seen a major shift in legal precedent. Earlier this year, two separate juries in Michigan found the parents of a school shooter guilty of manslaughter after prosecutors showed they not only purchased the weapon he used in the shooting for their son and failed to secure it, but also ignored numerous warnings from the school and cries for help from their own child.

Their conviction marked a sea-change—a parent has been criminally convicted for failing to prevent a mass shooting carried out by a child in their custody. A judge later sentenced them to at least 10 years in prison.

It’s possible the same fate awaits Mr. Gray.

As a mental health attorney who provides legal counsel to families of loved ones with serious mental illness, I applaud these forward-thinking District Attorneys who are taking action to stop this epidemic of violence and tragedy. Unlike most politicians, who seem unable to do more than offer “thoughts and prayers,” these public servants are demonstrating real compassion for the people they are sworn to protect while also showing the will to actually pursue justice. It is my fervent hope that others will follow suit.

Regardless of whether the prosecution of these parents serves as a deterrent for gunowners with minor or adult children, the legal actions can empower mental health professionals—attorneys, clinicians, case workers, etc.—to counsel parents of patients and clients about the dangers and liabilities of keeping weapons at home. These have traditionally been difficult conversations, given the large number of Second Amendment advocates across the U.S. and the misuse and misinterpretation of the law.

The warning signs that have overwhelmingly been present in mass shootings can no longer be ignored. Legal authorities, educators and parents themselves must take far more proactive measures with eliminating access to weapons representing a simple, legally available first step.

More specifically, schools should put in place multidisciplinary threat assessment teams that identify at-risk individuals before they present an immediate danger to themselves and others, not after. Using models designed to ensure early-warning signs trigger procedural alarm bells, these teams can be empowered to immediately conduct investigations, perform threat assessments and determine the best methods for intervention and response.

The best of these initiatives go beyond identifying would-be shooters, assessing each situation with an eye toward seeking early and appropriate support and possible treatment options. This rehabilitative approach creates avenues for inviting formerly at-risk individuals back to school, as appropriate, once benchmarks measuring therapeutic progress are met. It also serves to encourage educators and classmates to report concerning behavior, as people usually hesitate to notify others about early warning signs when the most likely outcome for the individual in question is punitive.

While it may seem like common sense, this approach is rarely embraced. Institutions are often wary of taking action in advance of clear evidence that an individual poses a likely immediate threat. They’re overly concerned about only one kind of liability rather than weighing the balance of them. To the leaders of these institutions, I say one must, at times, simply “pick their liability” and remember their actions can save a life.

Failure to think and act in this manner has made it possible for mass shooters to exhibit red flag after red flag—a seemingly endless trail of warning signs that, in retrospect, appears tragically obvious.

Similar inaction on every level has served to contribute to this plague on our country, with countless individuals in positions of power consistently turning their back on their sworn oaths, ethical obligations and professional responsibilities. It is admirable that a handful of DAs have sought to do better. Others need to follow their lead.