I live about a mile from this hotel, I am a gun owner and a staunch conservative. I also was strongly supportive of Zimmerman’s acquittal.
That said, I think the Riverside was right in canceling for the following reasons:
1. Zimmerman, although I thought was being prosecuted for political reasons, has nothing to add to the “Lethal Force Gun Laws 2021 Tactics & Strategies Conference”.
2. An acquittal on this charge, although I agreed with it, does not mean that the person is innocent. And we don’t need that person being the “gold standard” on the subject of gun laws and strategies.
3. Him as speaker at this event I believe is divisive. He has name recognition and that’s it. It may be great to draw a crowd, but drawing a crowd should not be the focus of this forum.
4. This would have brought a lot of press coverage to Boise, and knowing the press, it would have (all) not been positive.
+1
I am no fan of George Zimmerman. But the conference organizers have the right to bring on any speaker they wish: a divisive speaker, a stupid speaker, an ax murderer, whatever.
The only exception to that would be if the contract gave the hotel specific cancelling powers.
Interestingly, I consider myself to be a staunch conservative, but after reading your first 3 reasons, I couldn't be of a more opposite opinion. But then you would be allowed to speak and I'd be shut out.
Zimmerman’s case actually sits at a nexus of issues this conference would seem to be all about: achieving legal reform to protect self-defenders from, among other things, wrongful prosecution by politically motivated jurisdictions and mob rule. The right of self-defense should be enshrined in law, and there should be draconian punishments for prosecutors who knowingly present fake witnesses (such as Rachel Jeantel, who pinch hit on the witness stand for the real “ear witness”, Diamond Eugene). The proper conduct and use of police interrogations, turning over evidence to the defense, etc. are all proper legal topics. Whether Zimmerman’s physical presence adds anything to the discussion is hard to say. He is a victim of legal abuse, not an attorney or expert on legislation.
The evidence presented at trial, and subsequent proof of mega-misconduct by Bernie de la Ronda et al, indeed establish that Zimmerman is legally “innocent”. But his innocence or guilt is irrelevant to whether leftist rioters would make the hotel into a battleground; I imagine that was the management’s main consideration.
Saying “Zimmerman had nothing to add” is your version of prior restraint of free speech. You have pre-judged the potential public remarks of a man you do not know.
How do you know what he may or may not have useful to add to the conversation?
Canceling public speakers for the hurt they MIGHT cause is completely un-American.
Free speech is about letting all subjects be openly debated.
Others can easily pre-judge YOU for any opinions you might have about the Second Amendment and keep YOU from speaking.
You say a finding of “not guilty” of George Zimmerman is not a reflection of his innocence. What other legal standard is there? Would you stop public speech of someone with a “bad attitude?”
“2. An acquittal on this charge, although I agreed with it, does not mean that the person is innocent.”
*************************************************************
Zimmerman was not innocent, he was in fact totally guilty of violating the “Safari Rule”.
1.Stay in your vehicle at all times.
2.Never make eye contact.
Any violation may subject the violator (ie Zimmerman) to a sudden and violent attack as the unarmed teen is incapable of controlling their raging anger at being dissed.