HOUSTON, Texas — A jury in Houston on Monday cleared the parents of Dimitrios Pagourtzis, the accused gunman in the 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting, of liability. However, they affirmed the liability of their son, as well as the online ammunition retailer Luckygunner, in the tragic event that left ten dead and several wounded.
The court found Dimitrios Pagourtzis responsible for 80% of the damages, while Luckygunner was deemed liable for the remaining 20%. The decision followed intense deliberations after victims’ families argued that Dimitrios’ parents neglected their son’s deteriorating mental health and failed to securely store firearms.
Defense attorney Lori Laird spoke on behalf of the Pagourtzis family, expressing relief at the verdict. According to Laird, the family took necessary precautions to secure their firearms and the keys were hidden, but despite these measures, their son accessed the weapons used in the shooting.
The proceedings illuminated the challenges of assessing responsibility in cases where mental health and gun ownership intersect. The jury had to consider whether the parents could foresee their son’s intentions despite his concealed mental health struggles. Additionally, testimonies from psychiatrists suggested that signs of mental illness can be expertly hidden by those suffering.
The jury awarded $300 million in damages, though this figure remains symbolic as Luckygunner had reached a settlement with the victims’ families before the verdict. Consequently, the company won’t face direct financial repercussions as a result of this judgment. However, the financial implications for Dimitrios Pagourtzis are more complex, considering his current hospitalization and status as legally incompetent to stand trial.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Clint McGuire, underscored the importance of responsible gun ownership and parental vigilance concerning their children’s mental health. McGuire emphasized that the verdict, despite acquitting the parents, should send a strong message about the legal repercussions for failing to adhere to these responsibilities.
A juror who spoke to reporters anonymously shared insights into the jury’s reasoning. He explained that 10 out of 12 jurors felt the parents had sufficiently secured their firearms and pointed to insights from mental health professionals about the ability of individuals to mask their mental decline.
Further comments came from the defendant’s mother, who had previously reached out to school officials expressing her concerns about her son’s wellbeing, hinting at her proactive steps to address his challenges before the shooting.
Nicholas Poehl, the attorney handling Dimitrios’ criminal defense, remarked on the nature of the civil trial. He pointed out the plaintiffs’ shift in recognizing Dimitrios’ mental health issues and speculated on the potential for appellate review concerning the considerable damages awarded under these circumstances.
The trial’s conclusion does not signify an end to the broader conversation about gun responsibility, mental health, and legal accountability that the case has reignited across the nation. It underlines the ongoing legal, social, and moral challenges posed by mass shootings, particularly involving young perpetrators within educational settings.