GALVESTON COUNTY, Texas — After weeks of intense testimony, a jury in Galveston concluded that the parents of Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who killed 10 people at Santa Fe High School in 2018, are not legally responsible for the tragic incident. The decision arrived late Monday following deliberations that spanned several days, ultimately exonerating Antonios Pagourtzis and Rose Maria Kosmetatos of direct accountability in the civil lawsuit brought by the victims’ families.
The families had argued that the parents should have secured firearms at their home and sought psychological help for their son. However, the jury attributed the deaths primarily to Dimitrios himself and, to a lesser extent, the online gun store from which the weapons were purchased. Consequently, the victims’ families were awarded millions of dollars in judgments against the gun store.
Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who was 17 at the time of the shooting, opened fire on May 18, 2018, resulting in the deaths of eight students and two teachers, with an additional 13 others wounded. He is currently deemed incompetent to stand trial and remains in custody at North Texas State Hospital, under the observation of mental health professionals.
The civil trial, distinct from criminal proceedings, required only 10 of the 12 jurors to reach a consensus. They were faced with 24 individual charges, including detailed questions about each aspect of the case.
During the closing arguments, Clint McGuire, representing the victims, emphasized that the case centered around justice and accountability. He passionately recounted the damage inflicted not only physically but also on the historical lineage of the families affected, as noted in Dimitrios’ chilling journal entries.
Attorneys spent considerable time detailing each victim’s experiences and losses, often becoming emotional. They urged the jury to consider a significant sum in damages, suggesting $25 million per family, as a gesture not just of monetary compensation, but symbolic acknowledgment of the immense loss suffered.
In defense, lawyer Lori Laird argued that the parents could not foresee their son’s actions, highlighting that there was no clear indication of his impending violence. She presented images of Dimitrios appearing normal days before the massacre and quoted Socrates to underline the epistemological limits that prevent foreseeing such tragedies.
Roberto Torres, representing Dimitrios, described his client’s mental state as a “mother of all psychotic hurricanes,” suggesting that his severe mental health issues diminished his capability for control or understanding of his actions. Torres stressed that blaming the parents was an oversimplification of a complex mental health tragedy.
The trial also heard from a psychiatrist who testified about Dimitrios’ multifaceted mental health disorders, painting a picture of a deeply troubled young man. Witnesses including Dimitrios’ father and younger sister also took the stand, sharing insights into his upbringing and mental health, which they claimed showed no significant signs of the impending violence.
In summary, the jury’s verdict reflects the complexities involved in attributing legal liability in cases of violent crimes, particularly involving young perpetrators with potential mental health issues. The decision underscores a profound community tragedy while also pointing to broader issues of gun accessibility and mental health awareness that continue to challenge society.