Shotgun

Who knows? Zimmerman may have continued looking for him. Martin may have come back to confront Zimmerman. I have no reason to believe Zimmerman over Martin's girlfriend, or her over him. I honestly don't understand how some people have so confidently picked sides in this case. There are very few clear details.

You don't know that Trayvon doubled back or that he was the one who started the confrontation. Only two people have stories about this (GZ and TM's girlfriend), and they conflict with each other. But, of course, you can choose to believe one over the other. Personally, I'll leave it as I don't know who confronted whom.

Accept for the fact many have convicted him already Last I knew, (but the law does seem to matter much less lately) people were innocent until being convicted Which it seems many have convicted him already They may have convicted him in their minds, but he's not actually convicted. In my eyes, he is innocent until proven guilty. And from what I've seen, my guess is that there is not enough evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of second-degree murder. Manslaughter, perhaps, but I honestly don't know, and it's not up to me. Anyhow, my point was that if he had taken the common sense advice of letting the police handle the situation (not getting out of his vehicle to follow TM), we probably wouldn't be talking about him right now because he probably never would have had a reason to shoot Trayvon Martin.

Hey, one of the Denny's out here (Hemet) has a cocktail lounge, so you could probably get a bloody mary with breakfast there.

I don't know why he did that. He could have stayed in his vehicle until the police arrived and then pointed them in the direction that he saw the "suspicious person" go. If I was watching a suspicious-looking person from my vehicle, and they suddenly took off running, I would assume that getting out and following them might be putting myself in danger. So I would have to have a really good reason for doing that. I don't know what Z's reason was.

True. I hate reading the comments at the end of news stories, so I usually avoid it. They generally give me a horrible impression of my fellow human beings, so I'd rather be blissfully ignorant of what is being said there. Oh, and I really enjoyed Dan's book.

With the current (conflicting) evidence, we have no way of knowing if Martin was "just being followed," or if he was confronted by Zimmerman. Being followed would probably make most people suspicious, and I agree that the proper action would usually be to call the police and let them deal with that person. If Zimmerman had followed that advice (let the police deal with the suspicious person), we probably wouldn't be talking about him right now. Zimmerman called the Police. And went off following the suspicious person rather than waiting for the police to deal with him. How do you know that? I can't be 100% sure, but the transcript of Zimmerman's phone call to police shows the dispatcher asking Z if he's following the guy, to which Z answers, "Yeah." I don't know of Z or anyone else disputing this evidence.

With the current (conflicting) evidence, we have no way of knowing if Martin was "just being followed," or if he was confronted by Zimmerman. Being followed would probably make most people suspicious, and I agree that the proper action would usually be to call the police and let them deal with that person. If Zimmerman had followed that advice (let the police deal with the suspicious person), we probably wouldn't be talking about him right now. Zimmerman called the Police. And went off following the suspicious person rather than waiting for the police to deal with him.

OK, so you believe Z's story and think that Martin's girlfriend's story (which conflicts with Z's) was made up. I don't see how you can come to a conclusion either way, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

With the current (conflicting) evidence, we have no way of knowing if Martin was "just being followed," or if he was confronted by Zimmerman. Being followed would probably make most people suspicious, and I agree that the proper action would usually be to call the police and let them deal with that person. If Zimmerman had followed that advice (let the police deal with the suspicious person), we probably wouldn't be talking about him right now.

NOT a similar case. He grabbed a gun and went LOOKING for trouble. He was not under physical attack. It's a little bit similar. The Texas guy was under physical attack after he went to confront his neighbors (while armed). He even has video of the fact that he was attacked by the apparently drunk men. Zimmerman (armed) got out of his vehicle to follow someone who he perceived to be a criminal. And from Zimmerman's story, apparently the guy he followed (who turned out to not be engaging in criminal activity), physically attacked him. And it does seem pretty believable that Zimmerman was attacked, but only after unnecessarily following someone (and possibly confronting that someone, though that part remains unclear).

Where the hell is the topic of evolution philosophical ? I figured I might get in trouble for saying that. And I agree that the question of whether or not evolution happens is not a philosophical question. But when we consider the entire topic of evolution (history, implications, etc.), I do believe there are some elements that are open to philosophical discussion. A couple of links that might touch on what I'm talking about: http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution/

Ask them directly. Watch what happens. I don't think I'll email or call them all right now to ask them, but if a situation arises where it seems like a good conversation to start, I'll do that. I think I generally don't try to start science discussions with people who don't seem interested in science, but I guess the topic of evolution is somewhat philosophical as well. Edit: But you've got me really tempted right now to post on facebook: "Hey Christian friends/family, what do you think of evolution?" I might regret it, but it might be interesting . . .

I agree that it doesn't make much sense to try to use science to prove that God doesn't exist, though science can disprove certain elements of some religions. I don't think science has much to do with my own non-belief in god(s). For me, it's not that the idea has been disproved; I've just never found a compelling reason to believe it.

Yeah, my response was based more on what I've seen in polls than on my own experience. From the Christians I know (and I know quite a few), I can think of several who accept evolution and several who don't, but with most of them the subject has never come up, so I have no idea what they think about it.

Getting back to the original post, I'm not convinced that most Christians accept evolution, though I know that a lot of them do.

They change the "recipes" for some of these drugs so fast, in an effort to skirt the law, that it's quite possible he had some chemical in his system that there was no test for. Bath salts, yet another victory in the war on drugs.

The story only mentioned alcohol, not bath salts.

While this is funny to read, it doesn't sound quite right to me. I'm no expert on evolution, but I think the human male reproductive system has a pretty good evolutionary advantage. They are able to produce a very large number of sperm from a fairly early age, and could technically impregnate many women very quickly (and easily, given the location of the genitals). And as long as some of their offspring survive to reproduce more offspring, it really doesn't matter (theoretically speaking) if they get kicked in the nuts at some point later on.

Funny; All I remember is Salma Hayek.

I don't see anything wrong with asking a store to carry an item that they don't. Most companies would appreciate the feedback, whether they use it or not. But it's a bit silly to throw a tantrum when they don't carry a particular product.

And if you search for "holster" on Google, you get about 40 million hits. Why are you searching for one on Google and the other on Google Shopping and then comparing them? (I don't see any "midget sex with horses" for sale on Google Shopping either.) Anyhow, it's their business. They can choose to sell or not sell whatever they want. And there is plenty of competition you can take your business to. I pretty much never use Google anyway.

Oh, and the From Dusk till Dawn trailer on imdb has Kelly Preston in it (as the reporter): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116367/

Was she in many before they got married? Most of her acting credits come after her marriage in 1991, but not a lot of meat. I had never heard of Kelly Preston, so I looked her up. Looks like she's done more acting since she married John Travolta than she did before. She was even in one of my favorite movies--From Dusk till Dawn. Just a small part as a newscaster, but a very memorable part; I just never noticed the name of the actress playing that part, nor would I have known she was JT's wife.

No. Actually, I think she did a lot of acting during the time they've been married.