Asp Forum - array equality question

Chris McMahon

1/22/2007 10:28:00 PM

This took me by surprise:

irb(main):001:0> a1 = ['x','y','z']
=> ["x", "y", "z"]
irb(main):002:0> a2 = ['y','z','x']
=> ["y", "z", "x"]

irb(main):008:0> puts "yo" if a1 == a2
=> nil
irb(main):009:0> puts "yo" if a1 != a2
yo
=> nil

I assumed order of elements would not be considered for equality. Is
there any particular reason for this behavior?

8 Answers

Robert Klemme

1/22/2007 10:38:00 PM

On 22.01.2007 23:27, Chris McMahon wrote:
> This took me by surprise:
>
> irb(main):001:0> a1 = ['x','y','z']
> => ["x", "y", "z"]
> irb(main):002:0> a2 = ['y','z','x']
> => ["y", "z", "x"]
>
> irb(main):008:0> puts "yo" if a1 == a2
> => nil
> irb(main):009:0> puts "yo" if a1 != a2
> yo
> => nil
>
> I assumed order of elements would not be considered for equality. Is
> there any particular reason for this behavior?

Why should order not matter? An array is an *ordered* list of elements
as indexing by position indicates. a1[0] == a2[0] will return false,
why then should a1 == a2 return true?

If you to ignore order you either have to compare sorted copies or
resort to Set.

Kind regards

robert

William James

1/22/2007 10:43:00 PM

Chris McMahon wrote:
> This took me by surprise:
>
> irb(main):001:0> a1 = ['x','y','z']
> => ["x", "y", "z"]
> irb(main):002:0> a2 = ['y','z','x']
> => ["y", "z", "x"]
>
> irb(main):008:0> puts "yo" if a1 == a2
> => nil
> irb(main):009:0> puts "yo" if a1 != a2
> yo
> => nil
>
> I assumed order of elements would not be considered for equality. Is
> there any particular reason for this behavior?

The reason for this behavior is that the creator of Ruby
and most of its users aren't devoid of knowledge of
programming. An array is not a set. An array is not a
hash (a.k.a. associative array). So of course order matters.
Does the order in which you read the chapters of a novel
matter? If order doesn't matter, then why is there a 'sort'
method that changes the order of an array?

Gary Wright

1/22/2007 10:46:00 PM

On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:30 PM, Chris McMahon wrote:
> I assumed order of elements would not be considered for equality. Is
> there any particular reason for this behavior?

The concept of order is an integral part of what it means to be an
Array.
If you aren't interested in order, then a Set is probably a better
structure.

require 'set'

a = [1,2,3]
b = a.reverse
p a == b # false
p Set.new(a) == Set.new(b) # true

Gary Wright

bigdog

7/8/2013 2:10:00 AM

On Sunday, July 7, 2013 11:48:07 AM UTC-4, gonjah wrote:
>
> Basically, the State had a prima facie case. It's up to the defense to
> dispute the States evidence.
>
You seem to be completely ignorant of very basic legal principles. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must prove all elements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

>, we have to look
>
> at what is left, the evidence, make a decision, weighing the fact that
> GZ is a proven liar and will say anything in an attempt to prove it was
> self defense.
>
> This page can help explain what the State needed to bring GZ to trial
> and what GZ has to do to win an acquittal.
>
If the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman's use of deadly force was not justified, the defense doesn't have to do a damn thing. The state's own witnesses have more than established reasonable doubt.
>

> I think he's getting a good shot at a fair trial. Is it going well for
>
> GZ? IMHO No. You're welcome to your opinion and I respect it.

JohnJohnsn

7/9/2013

In article <gfpjt81319odqdhs1eaemua6v6r9cdiq8s@4ax.com>, Slippy the Zimmerman-
hating Lib <Dev@null.net> says...
>
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:55:16 -0500, Johnny Johnson
> <TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <kv4jt81009k99av1r7la6i5iqlqciook7b@4ax.com>, Oren@127.0.0.1
says...
>>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:48:07 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 7/7/2013 10:17 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:06:31 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/7/2013 9:15 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:12:17 GMT, benj <benj@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All I can say is the jury really faces a moral dilemma here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) The state has not proved 2nd degree murder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) The state has not proven that's Zimmerman's actions were not
>>>>>>> in self defense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have to *prove* both of the above and have failed to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difficulty is GZ was, in effect, stalking TM with a firearm. This
>>>>>> isn't in dispute. He was told "we don't need you to do that".
>>>>>
>>>>> GZ does not have to listen to a civilian emergency call center
>>>>> dispatcher. He was not "stalking". He was making visual observations
>>>>> and had a every right to do so on private property. His firearm was
>>>>> legal and there is no evidence he was brandishing his gun.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The State doesn't need to "prove" this. Prima facie, GZ was the
aggressor.
>>>>>
>>>>> The state HAS to prove 2nd degree murder - a "depraved mind", and
>>>>> that his actions were not "self defense". They have failed to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Facts already in evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Facts already in evidence.
>>>
>>>> Humm..
>>>>
>>>> The evidence is pretty clear.
>>>>
>>>> The criteria for a second degree murder trial has been met.
>>>
>>> They have not proven a "depraved mind".
>>>
>>>> Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
>>>> That's what juries are for. Thankfully.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, the State had a prima facie case.
>>>> It's up to the defense to dispute the States evidence.
>>>
>>> The defense doesn't have to prove anything.
>>> Why do you think O' Mara sought a motion to dismiss when the
>>> prosecution rested (like I thought he would do).
>>>
>>>> I'm not doubting your passion in the belief he's innocent.
>>>> I think the evidence shows, GZ is a liar and can't be believed.
>>>> So, we have to look at what is left, the evidence, make a decision,
>>>> weighing the fact that GZ is a proven liar and will say anything in
>>>> an attempt to prove it was self-defense.
>>>
>>> What lie are you talking about?
>>> Is it about knowing about the stand your ground law?
>>>
>>> First, the law is not titled Stand Your Ground.
>>> That is a nickname given to the Castle Doctrine. (no duty to retreat).
>>>
>>> Second, he is not on trial for lying or singing to loud in church.
>>>
>>>> This page can help explain what the State needed to bring GZ to
>>>> trial and what GZ has to do to win an acquittal.
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.c...
>>>>
>>>>http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degr...
defenses.html
>>>
>>> Those are generalized. This is from Florida law:
>>>
>>> "..The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act
>>> imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind
>>> regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to
>>> effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second
>>> degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by
>>> imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in
>>> s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
>>>
>>>http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...
App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-
0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html
>>>
>>>> Scroll down to "Self Defense" and note:
>>>>
>>>> "The defendant was not the aggressor or instigator."
>>>
>>> Have you ever heard of "imperfect self defense"?
>>> Basically, it is when the "hunter" becomes the "hunted".
>>> Even if GZ was the hunter (no evidence he was), self defense
>>> can apply when he became the hunted.
>>>
>>>> This is the crux. The State had a prima facia case against GZ.
>>>
>>> So why did the special prosecutor not take this case before a Grand
>>> Jury? I see no facts that she did. She indicted a ham sandwich.
>>
>> Actually, Special Prosecutor took this case to trial on an "Information"
>> complaint; not an "indictment.
>>
>> An indictment is handed down from a Grand Jury, and the reason that
>> she didn't try for Murder 1 was that it required a presentment to a Grand
>> Jury and she wasn't _about_ to take a chance that they wouldn't see it
>> "her way" and return a finding of "No True Bil of Indictment" and end her
>> "show trial" then and there.
>>>
>>>> I don't have a dog in this fight.
>>>
>> Neither do I:
>
> Apart from sending money to Zimmerman and encouraging others on Usenet
> to do the same you mean?
>
Feel free to do a search of these Newsgroups on Google Groups to try and find
where: 1) I ever gave _any_ money to the George Zimmerman Defense Fund; or, 2)
where I _ever_ encouraged _anyone_ to do so.

[ I just _love_ sending these VLILLLDMs on these "Fools' Errands <g>.
[ Wastes their time.
>
>> just the "hunt" for real justice and not this "We'll give him a fancy
>> `show trial', followed by a first class hanging" (paraphrasing Brian
>> Dennehy from `Silverado') that all these Zimmerman-haters really want.
>>
>>> I'm just going by what has transpired over the past couple of weeks.
>>>
>>>> I think he's getting a good shot at a fair trial.
>>>> Is it going well for GZ?
>>>> IMHO No.
>>>> You're welcome to your opinion and I respect it.
>>>
>>> Giggle. Every state witness was stolen by the defense.
>>> I think GZ is doing well.
>>> When all is said and done he should sue the state for
>>> malicious prosecution.
>
>> I agree with that, adding Al "Where's the Camera???" Sharpton
>> for his envolvement with, nee, incitement of, this "Rush to INjustice."

GOP_Decline_and_Fall

7/9/2013 1:15:00 AM

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 19:00:24 -0500, Johnny Johnson
<TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>In article <gfpjt81319odqdhs1eaemua6v6r9cdiq8s@4ax.com>, Slippy the Zimmerman-
>hating Lib <Dev@null.net> says...
>>
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 15:55:16 -0500, Johnny Johnson
>> <TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <kv4jt81009k99av1r7la6i5iqlqciook7b@4ax.com>, Oren@127.0.0.1
>says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:48:07 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 7/7/2013 10:17 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:06:31 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/7/2013 9:15 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:12:17 GMT, benj <benj@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All I can say is the jury really faces a moral dilemma here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) The state has not proved 2nd degree murder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) The state has not proven that's Zimmerman's actions were not
>>>>>>>> in self defense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They have to *prove* both of the above and have failed to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difficulty is GZ was, in effect, stalking TM with a firearm. This
>>>>>>> isn't in dispute. He was told "we don't need you to do that".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GZ does not have to listen to a civilian emergency call center
>>>>>> dispatcher. He was not "stalking". He was making visual observations
>>>>>> and had a every right to do so on private property. His firearm was
>>>>>> legal and there is no evidence he was brandishing his gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The State doesn't need to "prove" this. Prima facie, GZ was the
>aggressor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The state HAS to prove 2nd degree murder - a "depraved mind", and
>>>>>> that his actions were not "self defense". They have failed to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Facts already in evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Facts already in evidence.
>>>>
>>>>> Humm..
>>>>>
>>>>> The evidence is pretty clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> The criteria for a second degree murder trial has been met.
>>>>
>>>> They have not proven a "depraved mind".
>>>>
>>>>> Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
>>>>> That's what juries are for. Thankfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, the State had a prima facie case.
>>>>> It's up to the defense to dispute the States evidence.
>>>>
>>>> The defense doesn't have to prove anything.
>>>> Why do you think O' Mara sought a motion to dismiss when the
>>>> prosecution rested (like I thought he would do).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not doubting your passion in the belief he's innocent.
>>>>> I think the evidence shows, GZ is a liar and can't be believed.
>>>>> So, we have to look at what is left, the evidence, make a decision,
>>>>> weighing the fact that GZ is a proven liar and will say anything in
>>>>> an attempt to prove it was self-defense.
>>>>
>>>> What lie are you talking about?
>>>> Is it about knowing about the stand your ground law?
>>>>
>>>> First, the law is not titled Stand Your Ground.
>>>> That is a nickname given to the Castle Doctrine. (no duty to retreat).
>>>>
>>>> Second, he is not on trial for lying or singing to loud in church.
>>>>
>>>>> This page can help explain what the State needed to bring GZ to
>>>>> trial and what GZ has to do to win an acquittal.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.c...
>>>>>
>>>>>http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degr...
>defenses.html
>>>>
>>>> Those are generalized. This is from Florida law:
>>>>
>>>> "..The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act
>>>> imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind
>>>> regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to
>>>> effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second
>>>> degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by
>>>> imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in
>>>> s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...
>App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-
>0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html
>>>>
>>>>> Scroll down to "Self Defense" and note:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The defendant was not the aggressor or instigator."
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever heard of "imperfect self defense"?
>>>> Basically, it is when the "hunter" becomes the "hunted".
>>>> Even if GZ was the hunter (no evidence he was), self defense
>>>> can apply when he became the hunted.
>>>>
>>>>> This is the crux. The State had a prima facia case against GZ.
>>>>
>>>> So why did the special prosecutor not take this case before a Grand
>>>> Jury? I see no facts that she did. She indicted a ham sandwich.
>>>
>>> Actually, Special Prosecutor took this case to trial on an "Information"
>>> complaint; not an "indictment.
>>>
>>> An indictment is handed down from a Grand Jury, and the reason that
>>> she didn't try for Murder 1 was that it required a presentment to a Grand
>>> Jury and she wasn't _about_ to take a chance that they wouldn't see it
>>> "her way" and return a finding of "No True Bil of Indictment" and end her
>>> "show trial" then and there.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a dog in this fight.
>>>>
>>> Neither do I:
>>
>> Apart from sending money to Zimmerman and encouraging others on Usenet
>> to do the same you mean?
>>
>Feel free to do a search of these Newsgroups on Google Groups to try and find
>where: 1) I ever gave _any_ money to the George Zimmerman Defense Fund; or, 2)
>where I _ever_ encouraged _anyone_ to do so.

>[ I just _love_ sending these VLILLLDMs on these "Fools' Errands <g>.
>[ Wastes their time.

My apologies then.

I probably confused you with Gunner or some other fringe
loony.

Even you do not deserve that.
>>
>>> just the "hunt" for real justice and not this "We'll give him a fancy
>>> `show trial', followed by a first class hanging" (paraphrasing Brian
>>> Dennehy from `Silverado') that all these Zimmerman-haters really want.
>>>
>>>> I'm just going by what has transpired over the past couple of weeks.
>>>>
>>>>> I think he's getting a good shot at a fair trial.
>>>>> Is it going well for GZ?
>>>>> IMHO No.
>>>>> You're welcome to your opinion and I respect it.
>>>>
>>>> Giggle. Every state witness was stolen by the defense.
>>>> I think GZ is doing well.
>>>> When all is said and done he should sue the state for
>>>> malicious prosecution.
>>
>>> I agree with that, adding Al "Where's the Camera???" Sharpton
>>> for his envolvement with, nee, incitement of, this "Rush to INjustice."

Flint

7/9/2013 6:50:00 AM

On 7/7/2013 6:09 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Oren" <Oren@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:e08jt8hdkhfagqeo7elkh3amqvdabauqhm@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:50:14 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/7/2013 11:44 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:48:07 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/7/2013 10:17 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:06:31 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/7/2013 9:15 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:12:17 GMT, benj <benj@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All I can say is the jury really faces a moral dilemma here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) The state has not proved 2nd degree murder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) The state has not proven that's Zimmerman's actions were
>>>>>>>> not in
>>>>>>>> self defense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They have to *prove* both of the above and have failed to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difficulty is GZ was, in effect, stalking TM with a
>>>>>>> firearm. This
>>>>>>> isn't in dispute. He was told "we don't need you to do that".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GZ does not have to listen to a civilian emergency call center
>>>>>> dispatcher. He was not "stalking". He was making visual
>>>>>> observations
>>>>>> and had a every right to do so on private property. His firearm was
>>>>>> legal and there is no evidence he was brandishing his gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The State doesn't need to "prove" this. Prima facie, GZ was the
>>>>>>> aggressor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The state HAS to prove 2nd degree murder - a "depraved mind",
>>>>>> and that
>>>>>> his actions were not "self defense". They have failed to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Facts already in evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Facts already in evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Humm..
>>>>>
>>>>> The evidence is pretty clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> The criteria for a second degree murder trial has been met.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They have not proven a "depraved mind".
>>>>
>>>>> Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That's what juries are
>>>>> for. Thankfully.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, the State had a prima facie case. It's up to the
>>>>> defense to
>>>>> dispute the States evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The defense doesn't have to prove anything. Why do you think O' Mara
>>>> sought a motion to dismiss when the prosecution rested (like I
>>>> thought
>>>> he would do).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not doubting your passion in the belief he's innocent. I
>>>>> think the
>>>>> evidence shows, GZ is a liar and can't be believed. So, we have
>>>>> to look
>>>>> at what is left, the evidence, make a decision, weighing the fact
>>>>> that
>>>>> GZ is a proven liar and will say anything in an attempt to prove
>>>>> it was
>>>>> self defense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What lie are you talking about? Is it about knowing about the stand
>>>> your ground law?
>>>>
>>>> First, the law is not titled Stand Your Ground. That is a nickname
>>>> given to the Castle Doctrine. (no duty to retreat).
>>>>
>>>> Second, he is not on trial for lying or singing to loud in church.
>>>>
>>>>> This page can help explain what the State needed to bring GZ to
>>>>> trial
>>>>> and what GZ has to do to win an acquittal.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.c...
>>>>>
>>>>> http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-def...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those are generalized. This is from Florida law:
>>>>
>>>> "..The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act
>>>> imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind
>>>> regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to
>>>> effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the
>>>> second
>>>> degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by
>>>> imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in
>>>> s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.0...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Scroll down to "Self Defense" and note:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The defendant was not the aggressor or instigator."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever heard of "imperfect self defense"? Basically, it is
>>>> when the "hunter" becomes the "hunted". Even if GZ was the hunter
>>>> (no
>>>> evidence he was), self defense can apply when he became the hunted.
>>>>
>>>>> This is the crux. The State had a prima facia case against GZ.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So why did the special prosecutor not take this case before a Grand
>>>> Jury? I see no facts that she did. She indicted a ham sandwich.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just going by what has
>>>>> transpired
>>>>> over the past couple of weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think he's getting a good shot at a fair trial. Is it going
>>>>> well for
>>>>> GZ? IMHO No. You're welcome to your opinion and I respect it.
>>>>
>>>> Giggle. Every state witness was stolen by the defense. I think GZ is
>>>> doing well. When all is said and done he should sue the state for
>>>> malicious prosecution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL. So all the sudden you're an expert on FL law. Maybe you should go
>>> to work for the State.
>>>
>>
>> Not an expert BUT I am a former law enforcement officer that worked
>> for the state of Florida, retired federal law enforcement officer.
>>
>> And your experience is? CSI television?
>>
>>> I guess you really don't get it. That's okay. Let's see how it turns
>>> out. Personally, I think it's fascinating. He may get off. Stranger
>>> things have happened.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> It is not about that he may "get off". The man is innocent and has
>> not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> I have to dispute the assertion he's innocent. That hasn't been shown
> either. A lot would depend on who started the fight and that is
> inconclusive.
>
>

Actually, Scout, until GZ is actually convicted, he has (under the
law) a >presumption< of innocence. Since we don't have an actual jury
"third verdict" of 'innocence', but only 'Not PROVEN guity', the
presumption must remain standing.

--
MFB

Scout

7/9/2013 11:04:00 PM

"Flint" <agent001@section-31.net> wrote in message
news:krgbgi$o65$1@dont-email.me...
> On 7/7/2013 6:09 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Oren" <Oren@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> news:e08jt8hdkhfagqeo7elkh3amqvdabauqhm@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 11:50:14 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/7/2013 11:44 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:48:07 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/7/2013 10:17 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 10:06:31 -0500, gonjah <jthread@toast.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2013 9:15 AM, Oren wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:12:17 GMT, benj <benj@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All I can say is the jury really faces a moral dilemma here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) The state has not proved 2nd degree murder.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) The state has not proven that's Zimmerman's actions were
>>>>>>>>> not in
>>>>>>>>> self defense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They have to *prove* both of the above and have failed to do so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The difficulty is GZ was, in effect, stalking TM with a
>>>>>>>> firearm. This
>>>>>>>> isn't in dispute. He was told "we don't need you to do that".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GZ does not have to listen to a civilian emergency call center
>>>>>>> dispatcher. He was not "stalking". He was making visual
>>>>>>> observations
>>>>>>> and had a every right to do so on private property. His firearm was
>>>>>>> legal and there is no evidence he was brandishing his gun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The State doesn't need to "prove" this. Prima facie, GZ was the
>>>>>>>> aggressor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The state HAS to prove 2nd degree murder - a "depraved mind",
>>>>>>> and that
>>>>>>> his actions were not "self defense". They have failed to do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Facts already in evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Facts already in evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Humm..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The evidence is pretty clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The criteria for a second degree murder trial has been met.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They have not proven a "depraved mind".
>>>>>
>>>>>> Has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That's what juries are
>>>>>> for. Thankfully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, the State had a prima facie case. It's up to the
>>>>>> defense to
>>>>>> dispute the States evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The defense doesn't have to prove anything. Why do you think O' Mara
>>>>> sought a motion to dismiss when the prosecution rested (like I
>>>>> thought
>>>>> he would do).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not doubting your passion in the belief he's innocent. I
>>>>>> think the
>>>>>> evidence shows, GZ is a liar and can't be believed. So, we have
>>>>>> to look
>>>>>> at what is left, the evidence, make a decision, weighing the fact
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> GZ is a proven liar and will say anything in an attempt to prove
>>>>>> it was
>>>>>> self defense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What lie are you talking about? Is it about knowing about the stand
>>>>> your ground law?
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the law is not titled Stand Your Ground. That is a nickname
>>>>> given to the Castle Doctrine. (no duty to retreat).
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, he is not on trial for lying or singing to loud in church.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This page can help explain what the State needed to bring GZ to
>>>>>> trial
>>>>>> and what GZ has to do to win an acquittal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.c...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-def...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those are generalized. This is from Florida law:
>>>>>
>>>>> "..The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act
>>>>> imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind
>>>>> regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to
>>>>> effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the
>>>>> second
>>>>> degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by
>>>>> imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in
>>>>> s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.0...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scroll down to "Self Defense" and note:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The defendant was not the aggressor or instigator."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever heard of "imperfect self defense"? Basically, it is
>>>>> when the "hunter" becomes the "hunted". Even if GZ was the hunter
>>>>> (no
>>>>> evidence he was), self defense can apply when he became the hunted.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the crux. The State had a prima facia case against GZ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So why did the special prosecutor not take this case before a Grand
>>>>> Jury? I see no facts that she did. She indicted a ham sandwich.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just going by what has
>>>>>> transpired
>>>>>> over the past couple of weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think he's getting a good shot at a fair trial. Is it going
>>>>>> well for
>>>>>> GZ? IMHO No. You're welcome to your opinion and I respect it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Giggle. Every state witness was stolen by the defense. I think GZ is
>>>>> doing well. When all is said and done he should sue the state for
>>>>> malicious prosecution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL. So all the sudden you're an expert on FL law. Maybe you should go
>>>> to work for the State.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not an expert BUT I am a former law enforcement officer that worked
>>> for the state of Florida, retired federal law enforcement officer.
>>>
>>> And your experience is? CSI television?
>>>
>>>> I guess you really don't get it. That's okay. Let's see how it turns
>>>> out. Personally, I think it's fascinating. He may get off. Stranger
>>>> things have happened.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> It is not about that he may "get off". The man is innocent and has
>>> not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>> I have to dispute the assertion he's innocent. That hasn't been shown
>> either. A lot would depend on who started the fight and that is
>> inconclusive.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, Scout, until GZ is actually convicted, he has (under the law) a
> >presumption< of innocence.

Which does not mean he is innocent.

>Since we don't have an actual jury "third verdict" of 'innocence', but only
>'Not PROVEN guity', the presumption must remain standing.

True, but presumption doesn't mean it's true. As such a claim that he is
innocent depends upon facts not in evidence. Even if found not guilty that
wouldn't mean he's innocent of the crime. He may be innocent, or he may be
guilty but without enough evidence to prove it. We don't know.

So I'm not challenging your basic logic, just your assertion that Zimmerman
is innocent. He may be, or he may not be...at this point only Zimmerman
knows for sure.

comp.lang.ruby

array equality question