They missed signs of their teenage son’s deteriorating mental health, ignored his school issues, and left him access to the family’s guns, which he used in a tragic Texas school shooting.
These are the main allegations in a Galveston, Texas courtroom, in a civil trial against the parents of Dimitrios Pagourtzis. In 2018, at 17, Pagourtzis fatally shot 10 people at Santa Fe High School.
A jury started deliberating on Friday to decide if the parents are liable for negligence.
The allegations against Antonios Pagourtzis and Rose Marie Kosmetatos echo those against Jennifer and James Crumbley, who were charged and convicted for the Michigan school shooting by their son Ethan in 2021.
While the trials differ in location and legal stakes, they both address the question: Could the shooter’s parents have prevented the massacre?
Trial lawyer Misty Marris noted these cases aim to hold parents accountable for their children’s actions. The Crumbley case has shown this approach can be successful.
These cases represent a broader effort to find accountability for the increasing number of school shootings in the US. This has led to a renewed focus on how teenage shooters access firearms and what their parents knew or did beforehand.
Marris mentioned that because the Crumbley parents were held criminally responsible, other jurisdictions are exploring similar legal actions against parents.
The trial of the Pagourtzis parents comes over six years after Dimitrios Pagourtzis killed eight students and two teachers at Santa Fe High School. He was arrested and admitted to the shooting.
Authorities stated he used a shotgun and revolver owned by his parents. Charged with capital murder, his trial was postponed after he was declared incompetent to stand trial.
The plaintiffs include families of six of the murdered students, a murdered teacher, and four injured survivors. They allege the parents were negligent in allowing access to firearms and not securing mental health care for their son.
The parents testified they saw no warning signs and had locked up their firearms.
Under Texas law, making a firearm accessible to a child is a crime, but “child” is defined as under 17. Investigators would need to prove the firearm was not secured.
This lawsuit is the first related to a school shooter’s parents since the Crumbley parents were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison. Prosecutors claimed the Crumbleys ignored their son’s mental health issues and got him a gun days before the Texas school shooting.
Ethan Crumbley, 15 at the time, killed four classmates and wounded seven others at Michigan’s Oxford High School in November 2021. He pleaded guilty to terrorism causing death, first-degree murder, and 19 other charges, receiving a life sentence without parole.
In closing arguments for the Pagourtzis case, plaintiffs’ attorney Clint McGuire emphasised the parents knew of their son’s mental health problems and failed to secure their guns.
McGuire cited emails and their testimony, indicating they knew something was wrong but did nothing to address it.
He pointed out the shooter’s 57 school absences, failing grades, and poor hygiene, and noted a social media post 18 days before the shooting where he wore a “Born to Kill” t-shirt.
McGuire argued the parents improperly stored their guns and did not get their son help.
These arguments mirror the prosecution’s case against the Crumbley parents. Prosecutors argued they bought and improperly stored the firearm used in the shooting, ignoring their son’s mental health issues.
Oakland County assistant prosecutor Marc Keast stated the gun was gifted to Ethan despite his mental crisis and social isolation.
In James Crumbley’s trial, Keast claimed he was grossly negligent for buying the firearm days before the attack and failing to secure it.
Keast said the tragedy was preventable and foreseeable.
The Pagourtzis parents’ defence echoed the Crumbley parents, claiming they were unaware of any issues.
Defence attorney Lori Laird blamed their son, the school, and the gun company that sold him ammunition online.
Laird argued there were no red flag warnings, noting their son had no police run-ins, substance issues, or serious school discipline.
In closing arguments, Laird emphasized Dimitrios Pagourtzis’s mental illness, refocusing blame on him.
She stated the parents did not pull the trigger or give him a gun.
Antonios Pagourtzis testified he was unaware of his son’s mental health issues and locked up the family firearms.
Asked if he bore responsibility for the Texas school shootings of May 18, 2018, he replied, “Yes.”
Rose Marie Kosmetatos testified she had no reason to suspect anything was wrong before the shooting, stating hindsight is 20/20.
In the Crumbley cases, both parents’ attorneys blamed their son and the school for not informing them of his mental health issues.
Jennifer Crumbley’s attorney argued parents can’t be responsible for everything their children do, especially if it’s not foreseeable.
James Crumbley’s attorney stated he did not know or suspect his son was a danger.
Although James Crumbley did not testify, Jennifer expressed no regret for her actions on the stand.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here are some common questions asked about this news
What are the allegations against the Pagourtzis parents?
They ignored their son’s mental health issues, missed school problems, and allowed access to guns used in the shooting.
Why are the Pagourtzis parents being sued?
For negligence in allowing their son access to firearms and not seeking mental health counseling for him.
What did the parents claim in their defense?
They claimed they saw no warning signs and had locked up their firearms before the shooting.
What is the key question in both the Pagourtzis and Crumbley cases?
Could the shooter’s parents have prevented the massacre?
Why is the Pagourtzis case significant?
It’s part of a push to hold parents accountable for school shootings, similar to the Crumbley case.