The trial of Colin Gray, a 55-year-old father whose teenage son shot 11 people in September 2024 at Apalachee High School in Georgia, has brought up a necessary question in law: How responsible should parents be held for the actions of their children in school shootings?

On March 3, a Georgia jury found Gray guilty on all 27 of his charges, including second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, cruelty to children, and reckless conduct. Prosecutors argued that Gray gave his 11-year-old son access to a rifle, despite many warning signs regarding his behavior and mental health.

Another similar case occurred in 2024, in which Jennifer and James Crumbley, the parents of the Oxford High School shooter in Michigan, were also convicted. This marked the first time in U.S. history that parents were held criminally responsible for their child’s actions in a school shooting. 

Like Gray, prosecutors argued the Crumbleys were responsible for purchasing their son a handgun as a Christmas gift and ignoring clear signs of his worsening mental health. These cases, bearing similarities, show that the primary argument for prosecutors against parents is that they contributed to the shooting through negligence for not recognizing warning signs.

In an interview with The Trace, Jaclyn Schildkraut, an expert on school and mass shootings who directs the New York-based Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium, said, “These have been instances where you have kids who are leaking warning signs and raising concerns left and right, and instead of getting them help, you’re giving them guns. There’s an element of negligence there that leads to the pursuit of accountability.”

But is this kind of prosecution justified?

When there is clear evidence that a parent knowingly ignored warning signs or failed to secure a weapon connected to the shooting, criminal charges are appropriate. In both the Gray and Crumbley cases, the issue was not simply bad parenting, but carelessness that created preventable tragedies. 

“The number one way in which mass shootings don’t happen is that somebody with information comes forward and says something,” Schildkraut said. 

Allowing a minor access to a deadly weapon, especially after documented warning signs, goes beyond negligence and into criminal responsibility.

However, not every parent can predict or control their child’s actions, and setting a precedent by holding them responsible risks unfairly punishing families that are already dealing with tragedy in the future. The legal system must distinguish between unavoidable circumstances and preventable failures.

Ultimately, cases like Colin Gray’s represent a shift in how society interprets accountability in school shootings. If you enable the circumstances for violence — especially by providing access to weapons — you may receive a hefty share in the consequences. But, that accountability must be applied carefully, with a clear line of negligence necessary for prosecution, to avoid turning grief into unjust blame.