A thing about this town is the amazing propensity to look for - and find - scapegoats for all of society's ills. Preferably a business, even better when a big multinational.
I don't even mean this specific case - figuring out who to sue is what lawyers do for a living - than the general vibe that spans all levels here.
Couple of questions:
- As someone woefully ignorant in civil law, under what theory is a business responsible for indemnifying against any possible crime?
- Does Starbucks get to turn around and sue the city? One can easily argue that if a business turns out to be legally obligated to provide a crime-free environment, the government is exponentially more responsible.
- As the dissenting judge noted, the proprietors are not authorized by law to have firearms on the grounds. How exactly is this all supposed to work?
The overarching point is a bigger one. While exception may be made for high-value, high-risk targets such as banks etc, businesses normally aren't supposed to be in the security businesses. If there is one job of government everyone can agree on, it is to ensure physical safety. To pass the buck on to a private business is to formally declare the government to be a failed one. It is to ensure inequality - if this becomes the norm, it will simply be an extra cost passed on to consumers (another point that people here seem to have trouble with: the business won't simply shoulder the cost, its customers will) and safety will become a value-add commodity rather than an absolute baseline.
To blame the business is to resort to a cheap cop-out which in this country, sadly, will surprise no one.