• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Sante Fe shooters father be punished?

JC Callender

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
6,477
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Metro Detroit
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Dimitrios Pagourtzis' father didn't secure his legally owned guns that were used in the Sante Fe school shooting. Should he face prison time because of this, and if so, how long?
 
Dimitrios Pagourtzis' father didn't secure his legally owned guns that were used in the Sante Fe school shooting. Should he face prison time because of this, and if so, how long?

Legally you are accountable for any weapon that belongs to you and is not secured. While not being secured the weapon plays a part in the injury or death of another, you can be punished. Though in this case it may be argued that he stole the guns for this purpose and the father may not have to worry.

I don't recall anything that could be used as a precedence for this. Even with working in the court for as long as I did and even then that was the lower circuit.
He could be charged if the weapons were readily in his possession before this took place. But other then that, I am not sure.

Personally: No, I don't see that he intended for his guns to be sued in this way. So if anyone is really going to try and have him punished for someone else's actions. Even if it was with his own weapons. I don't see a reason for that attempt at the current time.
 
If I leave my car unlocked, and it's stolen and used in a crime, am I criminally responsible?
 
Dimitrios Pagourtzis' father didn't secure his legally owned guns that were used in the Sante Fe school shooting. Should he face prison time because of this, and if so, how long?

How much do we know about their story? Does that kid have a history of violence or mental instability? Did father and son have a good relationship? I am trying to apply this to people I know, fathers who own guns and their sons. Off hand, I would say that none of the sons display any tendencies that make me think the fathers should lock up the guns. The ones I know go hunting with their sons, they clean and store weapons... No young kids live in the household or visit.
So where does that leave us? Fathers distrusting their sons and locking up weapons just in case? How about taking away car keys? I mean, one can use a car and ram it into people. No?
OTOH, what if there were obvious signs...and there usually are? If we can say for sure that the father knew the son to be unstable, then may be.
 
Dimitrios Pagourtzis' father didn't secure his legally owned guns that were used in the Sante Fe school shooting. Should he face prison time because of this, and if so, how long?

Is there an link to the story that gives the details about the weapons?
With out that information it's difficult to decide.
 
Pursuant to Texas gun control laws, a parent or guardian of a minor (the shooter was at the time of the incident, 17 and thus a minor) can be charged with Criminal Negligence should guns owned by the parent or guardian be used my the minor during a criminal act.

Without knowing the exact state of storage for these particular weapons, assuming they were unsecured is unsubstantiated. Since it is fairly common for shotguns to be kept available in many Texas homes, a local jury may not view the ownership of a readily available shotgun as negligent, no matter that it was used by a minor during a criminal action.

Sante Fe, Texas, like many other communities throughout the nation, such as Westchester, NY where the Clinton's maintain their residence (this is not an anti Clinton statement), local police and animal control experts are advising residents to maintain a readily available loaded shotgun on the premises for protecting small children and pets from the explosive population of predatory coyotes. This predator species has no predators preying on them, the population is expanding exponentially, appears to have lost its fear of humans, and is moving into urban and suburban areas. Coyotes have been removed from Manhattan parks and parklike settings in NYC by both the NYPD and animal control experts, some captured for relocation, euthanasia and some killed by police.

The sidearm used by the shooter may be another matter, unless he had previously received training for its use with parental permission and granted formal permission for its use subsequent to that training. Local law allows for such training and access at age 14. Not uncommon throughout Texas.

Some Texas jurisdictions do require stored weapon (meaning guns not carried or in use) securitization by local law. Santa Fe is not one of those jurisdictions.

As an aside, early reporting about this incident suggested the shooter had placed explosives on and off the campus where the shootings occurred, and subsequent searches for those explosives after he was detained. I've seen no mention as to whether or not they were found, merely rumor, disinformation from the shooter, since those early reports. Had he used explosives, IED's or more formal explosives, the toll of dead and wounded could have been much higher, pointing out a criminal act of this nature does not require assault rifles of any sort, not does it require guns of any sort.

Let's not allow our emotions to distract from finding better methods for preventing such potential tragedies. This particular shooter was cited he was perceived as "weird but not as a threat." With that in mind, the usual blame on mental health issues that should have interceded if we had better mental health offerings, also ring hollow. Obviously, as statistically minor as these incidents are, we do have a problem, nationally that keeps repeating with growing frequency. Emotional responses are not likely to provide solutions. What course of realistic actions can we take? Gun controls never stopped a determined criminal, merely made things more difficult. Do we want to see a shift, unintended consequences, to more horrific use of explosives?

I have no answers, but I certainly have questions. Questions that demand well thought out examination leading to solutions and prevention, not the usual labeling, back and forth emotional arguments that accomplish nothing.
 
At some point gun nuts are going to have to step up and promote responsibility and accountability, rather than bloviating about the 2nd Amendment.
Of course there should be legal ramifications for anyone that doesn't properly secure the guns that get used in such tragedies..
 
How much do we know about their story? Does that kid have a history of violence or mental instability? Did father and son have a good relationship? I am trying to apply this to people I know, fathers who own guns and their sons. Off hand, I would say that none of the sons display any tendencies that make me think the fathers should lock up the guns. The ones I know go hunting with their sons, they clean and store weapons... No young kids live in the household or visit.
So where does that leave us? Fathers distrusting their sons and locking up weapons just in case? How about taking away car keys? I mean, one can use a car and ram it into people. No?
OTOH, what if there were obvious signs...and there usually are? If we can say for sure that the father knew the son to be unstable, then may be.

I understand that a car could be used as a deadly weapon. This kid also supposedly made some bombs, so those could be used as well. But it seems obvious that the most effective choice for killing multiple school children is guns, and even though guns don't shoot themselves, they're a very effective tool. I think there's a lot more control while planning a mass murder with a gun than an automobile or bomb, as you can target certain people and you can also track people down with a gun. I think using a gun probably makes the murderer feel more powerful...maybe more god like in personally choosing who will live and who will die.
 
Pursuant to Texas gun control laws, a parent or guardian of a minor (the shooter was at the time of the incident, 17 and thus a minor) can be charged with Criminal Negligence should guns owned by the parent or guardian be used my the minor during a criminal act.

Without knowing the exact state of storage for these particular weapons, assuming they were unsecured is unsubstantiated. Since it is fairly common for shotguns to be kept available in many Texas homes, a local jury may not view the ownership of a readily available shotgun as negligent, no matter that it was used by a minor during a criminal action.

Sante Fe, Texas, like many other communities throughout the nation, such as Westchester, NY where the Clinton's maintain their residence (this is not an anti Clinton statement), local police and animal control experts are advising residents to maintain a readily available loaded shotgun on the premises for protecting small children and pets from the explosive population of predatory coyotes. This predator species has no predators preying on them, the population is expanding exponentially, appears to have lost its fear of humans, and is moving into urban and suburban areas. Coyotes have been removed from Manhattan parks and parklike settings in NYC by both the NYPD and animal control experts, some captured for relocation, euthanasia and some killed by police.

The sidearm used by the shooter may be another matter, unless he had previously received training for its use with parental permission and granted formal permission for its use subsequent to that training. Local law allows for such training and access at age 14. Not uncommon throughout Texas.

Some Texas jurisdictions do require stored weapon (meaning guns not carried or in use) securitization by local law. Santa Fe is not one of those jurisdictions.

As an aside, early reporting about this incident suggested the shooter had placed explosives on and off the campus where the shootings occurred, and subsequent searches for those explosives after he was detained. I've seen no mention as to whether or not they were found, merely rumor, disinformation from the shooter, since those early reports. Had he used explosives, IED's or more formal explosives, the toll of dead and wounded could have been much higher, pointing out a criminal act of this nature does not require assault rifles of any sort, not does it require guns of any sort.

Let's not allow our emotions to distract from finding better methods for preventing such potential tragedies. This particular shooter was cited he was perceived as "weird but not as a threat." With that in mind, the usual blame on mental health issues that should have interceded if we had better mental health offerings, also ring hollow. Obviously, as statistically minor as these incidents are, we do have a problem, nationally that keeps repeating with growing frequency. Emotional responses are not likely to provide solutions. What course of realistic actions can we take? Gun controls never stopped a determined criminal, merely made things more difficult. Do we want to see a shift, unintended consequences, to more horrific use of explosives?

I have no answers, but I certainly have questions. Questions that demand well thought out examination leading to solutions and prevention, not the usual labeling, back and forth emotional arguments that accomplish nothing.

Well thought out and written. Two comments:
I disagree that calling for some sort of action in mental health hollow, it is the common driving factor in all these types of shootings and all suicides. The sooner we start addressing the issue the more lives saved.
As for the immediate, armed security, metal detectors, and all large items searched, would stop some from even getting a gun into the school, especially​ long guns, and provide an immediate reaction team in the event someone does manage to attack our schools. That is just common sense.
 
If I leave my car unlocked, and it's stolen and used in a crime, am I criminally responsible?

Would it make you nervous if your government left nuclear weapons unsupervised and vulnerable to thieves? They don't detonate themselves. Would you leave a loaded gun in a baby carriage? It doesn't shoot itself.

Guns don't shoot themselves but they are the preferred weapon for many murders including all of these massacres of school children. These murderers seem to be playing god, choosing who lives and who dies, and in this case a gun is a much more efficient weapon than a bomb or automobile. With that said, how hard is it to lock up your guns?
 
Last edited:
Dimitrios Pagourtzis' father didn't secure his legally owned guns that were used in the Sante Fe school shooting. Should he face prison time because of this, and if so, how long?

Maybe for negligence? I dunno.
 
Let's make lots and lots of laws to punish the victim over the real perp.....right?

What are you talking about?
Who do YOU think the victims are in the Santa Fe tragedy?
 
If I leave my car unlocked, and it's stolen and used in a crime, am I criminally responsible?

No, but if you leave your tank unlocked, and your kid steals it and blows a big hole in the side of his school. You should be...
 
At some point gun nuts are going to have to step up and promote responsibility and accountability, rather than bloviating about the 2nd Amendment.
Of course there should be legal ramifications for anyone that doesn't properly secure the guns that get used in such tragedies..

See DC v Heller.
 
At some point gun nuts are going to have to step up and promote responsibility and accountability, rather than bloviating about the 2nd Amendment.
Of course there should be legal ramifications for anyone that doesn't properly secure the guns that get used in such tragedies..

There are already legal ramifications. Texas has a criminal negligence statute that covers this exact situation (Texas Penal Code § 46.13). I suspect this is hard for you, but you'll just have to wait a bit to see how this situation is eventually managed under Texas law.

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html
 
Dimitrios Pagourtzis' father didn't secure his legally owned guns that were used in the Sante Fe school shooting. Should he face prison time because of this, and if so, how long?

He should be prosecuted: if your kid goes to school and punches another kid and sends that kid to the hospital, you are are legally bound to bear the responsibility. When parents of these types stat getting hoisted on the yard arm, the others will lock up their guns.
 
Dimitrios Pagourtzis' father didn't secure his legally owned guns that were used in the Sante Fe school shooting. Should he face prison time because of this, and if so, how long?

I say no. Because this could apply to anything else you own that can be used to murder someone. Kitchen knives, baseball bats, pencils and pretty much anything else that can be used to murder someone with.A person stabbed to death with a kitchen knife is just as much dead as someone who is shot to death.Someone who commits 1st degree murder with a gun is just as much as a 1st degree murderer as someone who commits 1st degree murder with a knife,baseball bat or any other tool. Sure some anti-2nd amendment piece of **** will say a gun is designed for killing or shooting. However a gun is not made murder people just as a knife,baseball bat, or some other tool is not made to murder people.
 
I disagree that calling for some sort of action in mental health hollow, it is the common driving factor in all these types of shootings and all suicides. The sooner we start addressing the issue the more lives saved.

Theoretically we can make a case for every criminal shooter being insane. However, as in this case, there were no signals of a mental health causative factor. Additional mental health actions would not likely have prevented this shooting. Let's also not muddy the waters by including suicide in this matter, tho I will address suicide after I finish explaining why I label mental health as a hollow causative excuse for all the shootings we are witnessing.

Psychology, psychiatry and sociology, like medical practice in general, are not exact sciences, they are arts. Tho at times they may be based on science, they are not exclusive to science, and at times are subject to schools of thought which can be defined by fashion. In matters like those under discussion, fashion preempts scientific basis, thus becoming eminently vulnerable to error. And as well, as semi-scientific, the provision for recognizing other motivations becomes impossible as those motivations don't fit the fashion. 30 years ago heart attack sufferers were told by their doctors to not drink coffee, today, those seeking to prevent heart attacks and those who have suffered heart attacks are told to drink coffee. Fashion, based on observation and educated guesses. As recently as 5 years ago, patients with high blood pressure were told to reduce salt intake, now evidence shows those with low salt in their system are more prone to greater frequency of fatal heart attacks. No one knows how much is too much or not enough. Salt or sodium sensitivity can cause high blood pressure, but not for those who do not have that sensitivity. Less than 50 years ago, those who suffered Tourette’s syndrome were judged insane and sent to long term psychiatric treatment centers, even tho Tourette’s was identified as a neurological defect or disease in 1885. Now we have medicinal therapies that can reduce the effects of Tourette's syndrome, and no one claims it is psychological in origin for any individual.

Mental health becomes an excuse, and preventative mental health treatment or actions is as useful in this matter as for treating homosexuality. Moreover, I firmly believe in evil. Not in the religious sense, but in and of itself. And adherents of mental health issues reject evil as a holdover of earlier superstitious beliefs. When we separate the existence of evil from religion, evil then has nothing to do with superstition, and can be viewed as much of causative factor for criminality as mental health. Whether or not I am correct, does not dispute the reality that this felon went undetected by existing mental health methods of identification, nor those of many others. Ted Bunny was never detected as insane prior to his being caught. After fact he was labeled as a psychopath. I contend he wasn't except that the pseudo sciences of the day could not explain him as plain evil. How many other possible motivators for this behavior are not being considered, let alone identified, because of mental health being used as an excuse?

As for the immediate, armed security, metal detectors, and all large items searched, would stop some from even getting a gun into the school, especially​ long guns, and provide an immediate reaction team in the event someone does manage to attack our schools. That is just common sense.

Without a doubt, these exigencies may limit the shootings we are witnessing. However, there are schematics for using 3D printers to create automatic, semi automatic, and repeating fire arms made from paper and plastics than can bypass each of these security steps available on the internet. And those with an engineering background can devise their own. The determined criminal cannot be simply stopped.

We do our best to take down rabid dogs before they do damage. Our laws, our sense of fairness, prevent us from taking down dogs with two legs who are predators for the sake of being predators. The labels of mental health issues or evil, offer in and of themselves, no solutions.

As to suicide: Last week we saw a story in the media of a man who had lived more than 100 years who chose to take his own life in Switzerland, because here assisted suicide was not lawful and he needed help to do so. He made the decision because of quality of life issues for him. He chose a death of dignity. He was not insane. To determine that suicide is insane is immoral. It leaves no room for other states of mind, which are perfectly rational for those who need or want to take that step in life's journeys. Amalgamating criminal acts with suicide which may be righteous is plain wrong. Besides, death couldn't be all that bad, or we wouldn't all die. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom