Santa Fe High School Civil Trial: Jury now deliberating in case
SANTA FE, Texas - In the closing arguments of the 2018 Santa Fe High School shooting trial, attorneys presented starkly contrasting views on the responsibility for the tragedy.
Clint McGuire, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the gravity of the case, labeling it "the most important case in the country" as parents bring their children back to school.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Santa Fe HS shooting civil trial day 5: Survivor, victim's parents recount harrowing experience
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Santa Fe High School shooting civil trial: Plaintiff, co-defendants counsel present opening statements
McGuire argued that the case revolves around issues of justice and accountability, pointing to Dimitrios Pagourtzis, the accused shooter, and his parents, Antonio Pagourtzis and Rose Marie Kosmetatos. McGuire asserted that the parents were responsible for the shooting due to their failure to properly secure their firearms and address their son's mental health issues.
McGuire detailed evidence suggesting that Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who wore a "Born to Kill" T-shirt and had written a letter about wanting to "destroy bloodlines," had planned the attack deliberately. He described Pagourtzis' actions as premeditated, noting his choice of the art room as a target and his efforts to ensure police would have to come to apprehend him. McGuire highlighted several "red flags" that the parents should have recognized, including Pagourtzis' academic decline, social isolation, and troubling behavior.
The plaintiffs' attorney also pointed out inconsistencies in the parents' claims about their awareness of their son's mental state.
He referenced a text message from his parents and statements from Dr. Bradley Peterson, a psychiatrist who evaluated Pagourtzis, suggesting that the parents were aware of their son's issues but did not take effective action.
McGuire argued that the parents failed to safely store their guns and should share significant responsibility for the shooting. He proposed assigning liability percentages: 30% to Antonio Pagourtzis, 30% to Rose Marie Kosmetatos, 30% to Dimitrios Pagourtzis, and 10% to Luckygunner, LLC, the online ammunition vendor that sold Pagourtzis ammunition.
In contrast, Lori Laird, the defense attorney for the Pagourtzis parents, urged the jury to focus on the facts and not let emotions cloud their judgment. Laird argued that the parents should not be held responsible for their son's actions.
"Where does the blame belong? When a hurricane comes, are we blaming God?" Laird asked.
She contended that Dimitrios Pagourtzis acted independently, purchasing the ammunition and carrying out the attack without his parents' consent or knowledge.
Laird emphasized the mental illness of Pagourtzis and suggested that other factors, such as the actions of Luckygunner, LLC, and potential failures of the school system not seeing the Google searches of previous school shootings on his computer, were more relevant. She criticized McGuire's suggestion that Luckygunner should be assigned only 10% of the liability, questioning why the vendor should not bear more responsibility.
Laird also highlighted evidence showing that the Pagourtzis family had stored their firearms securely, with the keys to the gun cabinet kept out of easy reach. She presented photographs of Dimitrios Pagourtzis appearing cheerful and engaged with his family days before the shooting, arguing that the family did not recognize the extent of his mental health issues until his breakdown.
The jury now faces the task of determining liability and accountability in the aftermath of this tragic event. Attorneys for the families request the jury award $25 million to each victim.