“Given the “no firearms” signs, it wasn’t inevitable, but clearly an increased likelihood.”
I carry a small, easily concealed gun. Nobody will know I have it unless I have to use it. In that event I’m guessing nobody will complain that I had it. Even so, my plan it to put it away and walk quietly to the door.
Not sure about other states, but a “no firearms” sign in Washington state will only get you an invitation to leave should you get “caught “ I’ve yet to hear of anyone getting frisked at the front door. Bottom line. Sign or no sign, I carry EVERYWHERE.
The fact you are in a theater, sports arena, opera, or whatever, should have no bearing on the liability of the matter. The person who harmed the patrons was NOT the theater owner or management, it was a person with a poor grasp of reality indulging in unreasoned and wanton destruction of life and well-being of others.
The only remotely possible rationalization the judge may have been expressing was trying to assign liability here, based on the likelihood that the owner or management has access to “deep pockets”, while the actual perpetrator, the deranged young man, would have had no such assets.
Sometimes you just have to suck it up, or apply for charity elsewhere. There is no promise that “somebody, somewhere is gonna PAY!”
Rationalization is not prudence. It is sometimes very tortured logic, and does not register well with the realities of the world.