Sig

It said they were in the pool for 20 minutes. It didn't say they were being slightly electrocuted for 20 minutes.

Personally, I'm not assuming the worst for this case. I do see it as a possibility though, as I also see a possibility that the woman is exaggerating due to being so freaked out and fearful or even a tiny possibility in a more extreme case that many seem to immediately jump to in this forum - that the family is trying to take advantage of the situation to make some money out of it (many love jumping to this seriously dubious conclusion because there's an American involved and they aren't shy of their ridiculous stereotyping). At any rate, I don't believe there is anywhere near enough information in the article to be able to make a sound conclusion. There's only the statement by the woman, claiming to have almost died (or something to that effect). Of course, media/journalists always seem to want to put out the most sensational headlines to get views... so they say "electrocuted", which is not inaccurate IF there really were serious injuries. I don't care for that word being used this way, since it used to only mean that death came about by the shock. But, the meaning and usage of the word has changed over time (according to dictionaries and an online community of linguists), so... I guess we gotta get used to it.

I'm not claiming anything about their injuries. I'm not even saying "they got electrocuted". It's simply a question of language. It doesn't take a study in sociolinguistics or historical linguistics to know that language changes over time. The original usage from the 1800's is just how you mentioned - death. Things have changed and it is not uncommon to see the word "electrocuted" to be used in contexts of serious injury. It's not an issue to take up with me about their injuries. Ask the reporter or the claimants. We can't know anything clearly enough from the article other than taking the reporter's article and the statement that the female victim supposedly said (something to the effect that they almost died). If that's true, and there's no evidence solely from that article, to take strong stance against it, then the present day usage of "electrocute" fits, like it or not. You say, "I feel as though you would render the phrase 'electric shock' obsolete, cos apparently even the slightest shock is enough for you to say electrocuted." Now you're just being silly and attributing things to me that are not remotely reasonable from what I said before. The definition of a word has nothing to do with me. Take it up with British and American dictionary publishers and the linguists in their employ. There are myriad other words that have changed over the past few decades, let alone the last century, as in this case. By the way, I never said that I care for this usage. If it matters (I don't think it does), I don't care for this change in meaning and usage, but it is what it is. But there are so many toxic people in this forum picking on me for bringing up a simple issue of language, it is quite revealing! Apparently there are too many stressed out toxic individuals in need of something better to do with their lives.

Congrats on being consistent in your toxicity.

Agreed - debating the meaning of the word isn't necessary, since it has a definition and established usage. And since we don't know the severity of injury, it's not worth debating whether or not using the word was excessive or not. IF the supposed words of the injured woman were taken at face value, it would appear appropriate. But, who knows.... We sure don't. Nothing there to take a stand to debate with one way or the other. On top of that, news stories seem to have a tendency to use sensationalistic headlines at any given opportunity, whether truly warranted or not.

The word "rape" may not have been used, but is not "sexual assault" and bleeding from the girl's vagina not clue you in well enough? You conveniently left out part of my comment, which clearly shows that my desire for the death penalty was with the presumption that it would be due to a trial convicting the perpetrator of rape. How on earth would the civil government (as I specified) impose such a penalty without a trial? I don't believe I should need to spell out every iota and I was quite clear enough. It's plain to see that I wasn't calling for mob justice with no trial.

If you have trouble reading it, just say so from the beginning or just walk on by. No need to be toxic and snarky, although that appears to be the penchant so so many on here....???? What kind of seriously inquiring person asks someone if they know what paragraphs are? Want to make constructive criticism in a true attempt to gain understanding or less difficulty in reading someone's writing? Then do so. No need for disparaging remarks if you really aren't being intellectually dishonest.

This isn't an academic exercise. You are being intellectually dishonest, among other things....

"English lessons"? Lesson for the 21st century - Electrocution/Electrocute: Oxford Reference: "The injury or killing of someone by electric shock" Collins: "If someone is electrocuted, they are accidentally killed or badly injured when they touch something connected to a source of electricity." Merriam-Webster: "to kill or severely injure by electric shock" Longman: "If someone is electrocuted, they are injured or killed by electricity passing through their body." StackExchange: "The term electrocute was originally coined in 1889 by splicing the prefix electro- into the word execute. It originally meant execute (by electric shock). However, its meaning has evolved over time: first to also include accidental death by electric shock and later to include electrical injury, generally serious in nature."

That mean you don't know how to read?

Although I can understand why you may want to equate your experience in some way or another to the point at hand, basing an opinion on personal anecdotal experience isn't the wisest way to form an opinion from which to judge other people's disasters against. Organ damage or brain damage may not be readily known and the unborn child may also be affected. As you mentioned, we don't know the voltage or amperage. We also don't know how long they were shocked for. They don't know either. They have their ideas, but it is not knowable (unless there is something that wasn't reported) if it happened during the last few seconds before they were able to get out or if it was a low level long term exposure. There are so many unknowns, it is ridiculous for people to make their judgments toward this family with such callousness. Electrical shocks also do not affect every person in the same way. You can shock different people in the exact same way and have completely different outcomes - from death to near no effect. The crude mental toxicity on this forum is insane (that isn't directed toward you. I'm just stunned by the level of lunacy in here.).

That is irrelevant to my opinion re my point on compensation. But if you must know, to suit whatever presupposition you may be holding, my parents are not American and I grew up in a few different countries. Depending on how you define where one is "from"... I also did spend some years in America. I know absolutely that the kind of compensation I was mentioning would be offered in at the least 3 or 4 countries that I've lived and worked in. I know that the idea of compensation for mental/psychological pain/suffering is well established in both UK and Japanese law. And I would assume that if it is in two quite different cultures and juridical systems like that, it is likely common in many if not most countries. It is not anything that somehow Americans hold some sort of exclusive idea about. Not by any stretch. Now, as for Thailand.... I don't know as much in terms of law. But I do know that different Thai friends of mine who own businesses would certainly step up and try to do whatever they could to compensate the family to make them feel like they were cared about more than just paying for hospital bills. It is so absurd, it's unfathomable.

"minor incident"? Do you have any idea what electrical shocks like this can do to you? It could damage internal organs and cause brain damage, which of course can lead to all sorts of other complications. I don't quite get how people on here can laugh this off like it's nothing. And depending only on some little news article to form such opinions over something that could have lifelong consequences for these people, including a small child for God's sake, is mindboggling. There's a thing called empathy that seems to be severely lacking around here, not to mention the ability to grasp the potential seriousness of a variety of things.... smh

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that "damages", in personal injury cases, refers to losses including things like time missed from work, medical bills, as well as "pain and suffering", which can be both mental and physical. I have no idea how courts in Thailand tend to award damages along these lines, but I would think it exists to some degree. They most definitely have a case for it. And if negligence can be proven, there should be punitive damages too IMO, but that is unlikely to happen in personal injury cases, from what I've heard. I have a feeling that may be because the money awarded for pain and suffering may be deemed to take care of that "punishment"....? By the way, electrical shock can cause serious injuries. And the fact that she is pregnant makes one wonder what the effects could be on their unborn child. If that were my wife and 3 year old kid, I'd sure as hell be looking for any kind of punishment possible, IF it were due to negligence. If that couldn't be proven and it was purely accidental and all work on the jacuzzi and electrical system were up to par, but some unforeseeable incident brought it about, then I wouldn't pursue punitive damages. But their vacation was destroyed and a child has been affected in who knows what way, being only 3 years old. There could be a variety of mental issues to deal with. And more could be argued.... At any rate, it shouldn't have happened and the hotel should bear responsibility a hell of a lot more than just medical bills! That's ridiculous. If the family could afford the time away from their home country, maybe a couple of free weeks stay with meals would be a nice offer, even if it were only accidental, let alone the possibility of negligence. But only medical bills? For nearly being killed? Seriously???

I got curious because I've seen it used both ways - injury & death, so I looked it up. If the article and the woman are to be taken at face value, they were electrocuted. "Electrocution" encompasses severe or bad injury, not only death, which it appears you may have been inferring. Of the 5 dictionaries I checked, one of them only had death in the definition. All the others included injury.

The details of the crime are not necessary to be known in order to have an opinion that the civil government should impose a death penalty for rape (Which apparently you conceive to be murder? That would be a very odd idea. Or maybe you are referring to some other comment that I haven't seen.). What is known to have happened is that a child was raped. Is there any need to know more than that in order to have an opinion on what should happen to the perpetrator? Justice should be carried out by the laws of the land and by the rulers thereof. Anything less than death for the rapist of a child is not justice IMO. But I do not agree with torture, beating, etc... (I view a lifetime in prison as nearly equivalent to torture) a quick death is preferable. The perpetrator is still a human and therefore, personally, I think the body of any such criminal should be treated with respect, while doing the unfortunate necessity of ridding the world of the person.

Yeah, I have no idea if convicts react the same here as I know they do in the US. But it would be better if the civil government meted out justice properly in order to better bring about orderly society rather than society to start looking up to lawbreaking thugs to mete out justice.

No idea what it might be like in Texas, but if it is, more power to 'em!

Thanks for reminding me about Bolt! I haven't used them in ages (2 years??). Last time I did, their price was a LOT cheaper than others. I wonder if they've upped their prices since then.... Don't know why I forgot about them....

I used Grab last time I went through. Worked great.

I agree, a perp who does this has no place in society and isn't worth feeding, but I believe the concept of justice is more important to fulfill and is why anyone guilty of this crime should be put to death. Edit: And I'd say probably rather than possibly not his first time. But, of course, there has to be a first time, so who knows....

Just my opinion... but I don't think it matters whether or not he can repeat the act. If he is found guilty, true justice requires his death IMO. Letting a rapist live is not just.

Upon conviction, the penalty should be death to be carried out as swiftly as possible, preferably a public execution - after the obligatory appeals. And the sentence should be mandatory with no discretion on the judges part. I can't fathom why people won't be for the death sentence for people like this. Just wait until it's their daughter. I'd like to kill him personally before the police even got to him for arrest and trial, if it were my daughter (assuming I saw it with my own eyes, otherwise can't be certain until a thorough investigation is done).

It would only be conjecture on my part, of course, but it appears that by what the other commenter was saying about over-representation of Brits in this kind of news and your response being "Is there a culture problem?", that you are alluding to a Brit cultural problem? I'm not completely clear on your intended meaning. Either way, I would say that in the years that I used to hang out at clubs and occasionally bars, I didn't often go to ones where farang were represented much at all. And I saw plenty of fights involving various different Asian people with Thais. Never did see any that I recall, other than verbal stupidity, involving farang in those 10 or so years. But that shouldn't be too surprising since I only occasionally went to places in which there were a good number of farang. But even when I did go to those places and saw fights, it was never involving a farang. So, in my limited experience, if there's a cultural problem, it seems to me that it is a media cultural problem of preferring to report the more sensational story. And that narrative would be older farang as opposed to reporting on what seems to be more viewed as squabbles between equally Asian people. Just imagine if Brits or Americans were doing the things that the Chinese tourists and tour groups incessantly do across the country! I'd put my money on the reporting being covered a LOTTTTT more and with a LOTTTT more invective.

Not sure how you could possibly say he might have "deserved it". The "it" being, "a swollen head, a broken nose and three teeth knocked out." and a "cerebral haemorrhage." And you somehow equate that with "a smack on the mouth!" ????????