Texas Jury Reaches Surprising Verdict in 2018 Sante Fe School Shooting Case

A jury has ruled that the parents of Dimitrios Pagourtzis bear no responsibility for the tragic 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting, but the journey to that verdict is complex and full of significant implications.

At a Glance

A Texas civil jury ruled Dimitrios Pagourtzis’s parents not negligent in the 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting.
The lawsuit was initiated by the victims’ families, seeking accountability.
Responsibility was placed on Dimitrios and a firearms retailer for $330 million in damages.
Dimitrios, diagnosed with mental health disorders, remains held at a state mental health facility.

The Verdict and the Lawsuit

The Texas jury concluded that Antonios Pagourtzis and Rose Marie Kosmetatos could not be held liable for the actions of their son, Dimitrios, who killed ten people and injured many more in the Santa Fe High School shooting in May 2018. The plaintiffs, comprising relatives of those killed and injured, argued that the parents should be held accountable for negligence in how they stored weapons and managed their son’s mental health. However, the jury disagreed.

The plaintiffs’ case was built on claims that the parents failed to support Dimitrios’s mental health adequately and allowed him access to firearms stored at their home. During the proceedings, the parents testified that they had no knowledge of their son’s deteriorating mental state or online purchases. Their attorney maintained that the tragic incident wasn’t foreseeable and that Dimitrios’s actions couldn’t have been predicted or prevented by his parents.

A Galveston, Texas, jury found the parents of a teenager who shot and killed 10 classmates at Santa Fe High School in 2018 not liable for the violence, ending an unusual civil trial https://t.co/ZjVswK6jIe

— Reuters (@Reuters) August 20, 2024

Mental Health and Firearms Access

Despite the defense, the lawsuit makes it clear that Dimitrios, who was 17 at the time, accessed his parents’ guns and used them in the shooting. Personal firearms were stored in a gun safe and a display cabinet. Dimitrios has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and psychosis, complicating his ability to stand trial. He currently resides in a state mental health facility, held under charges of capital murder.

“We would’ve liked to have the parents share in their responsibility for this,” said Clint McGuire, who represented several of the families.

McGuire’s statement underscores the emotional pain carried by the victims’ families, who sought justice and accountability in a civil court. The jury ultimately sided with the defense, stating no negligence by the parents, while highlighting the complexity and limitations of assigning responsibility in such tragic cases.

A Galveston, Texas, jury found the parents of a teenager who shot and killed 10 classmates at Santa Fe High School in 2018 not liable for the violence, ending an unusual civil trial https://t.co/ZjVswK6jIe

— Reuters (@Reuters) August 20, 2024

Assessing Broader Responsibility

The civil trial not only focused on the actions of the parents but also on the role of external parties. The jury assigned partial responsibility to an online ammunition retailer, Lucky Gunner, which sold ammunition to Dimitrios without verifying his age. Despite settling with the families earlier, Lucky Gunner’s involvement raises essential questions regarding the regulation and accountability of firearm and ammunition sales to minors.

“Lucky Gunner wasn’t a party to the trial, so it was easy for the jury to place some of the blame on us because we weren’t there to defend ourselves,” Felde remarked.

This focus on the retailer reflects ongoing discussions on how to prevent future school shootings by possibly tightening regulations on firearm and ammunition sales, as over 75% of school shooters access weapons from home.

Judge Jack Ewing echoed a sentiment for change post-verdict, “We need to protect our children. They need to feel safe when they go to school,” he stated. “They need to feel safe at home. And that message will carry even outside of this courtroom.”

The $330 million judgment awarded to the victims’ families, although symbolic, has been acknowledged as an unlikely payout due to limited means and the complexities of enforceability. As McGuire points out, “Dimitri will never have a dime to his name the rest of his life,” indicating challenges in receiving justice or closure purely through financial restitution.

The trial’s outcomes shed light on gaps in current systems, from mental health support to firearm regulation. Holding parents accountable remains a contentious issue, as witnessed in previous cases across the country. Seeing this holistic view of responsibility could prompt much-needed legislative and community-driven initiatives to prevent future tragedies.