|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lazycomputerkids
Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 360
Location: Tabuk
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| johnslat wrote: |
Dear LCK,
"What remains to be given character is motive which determines the degree of homicide."
Umm, no "foul play, remember? |
John,
You fail to distinguish Western terms like manslaughter and homicide with their parallel perception in Saudi law. A man was killed and this the motorist cannot deny. By what circumstance is what is measured by men, inspired and condemned by interpretations of a deity.
I'm unsure why you're confused and conclude my own terms contradict. I find your rhetorical use of "remember" patronizing. You trust an intuition, it appears. Again, foul play suggests a "grudge" of a period of time sufficient to establish forethought-- or an intrigue. The investigator has basically said, "These men did not know another."
Without Wax
LCK |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear LCK,
If there is no foul play involved (as, perhaps prematurely, stated) then there is no criminal act.
The most a the Saudi driver could be charged with is careless/reckless driving (which is a traffic violation, not a felony but a misdemeanor) and would result only in his getting a ticket, if that.
At any rate, if we can uncover a follow-up to the story, that should settle any differences.
Sorry you mistakenly dtected any patronization in my post.
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lazycomputerkids
Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 360
Location: Tabuk
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnslat wrote: |
If there is no foul play involved (as, perhaps prematurely, stated) then there is no criminal act.
Sorry you mistakenly dtected any patronization in my post. |
Foul play and criminal act are not congruent. Supposing I would forget the implications of my own argument is patronizing. Father. Law's not your thing. That's all. Ruling out foul play says, "No prior entanglement/Passion" How the passion will be rationalized is all that remains. Given the investigator hasn't buried some cell phones or taken a bribe. What's sad to me is a prevailing admonition (not from you) riding a bicycle in Saudi Arabia is crime enough to invoke...The Monkey Sphere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear LCK,
Well, Son/Daughter (did you really address me as"Father" - heck, you can call me "Dad"), I think foul play has these definitions:
foul play
1 n-uncount Foul play is criminal violence or activity that results in a person's death.
2. unlawful or dishonest behavior, in particular violent crime resulting in another's death.
which (to me, anyway) would imply that "no foul play" would mean no "criminal violence or activity" or no "unlawful or dishonest behavior, in particular violent crime resulting in another's death."
Riding a bike in Saudi (unless it's an exercise bike in a gym or a living room) certainly isn't criminal, but I think I'd classify it as foolhardy:
"marked by defiant disregard for danger or consequences, unwisely bold or venturesome; rash"
Regards,
Dad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
7atetan
Joined: 01 Jan 2010
Posts: 93
Location: Not in the Mediterranean Sea
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lazycomputerkids wrote: |
| johnslat wrote: |
If there is no foul play involved (as, perhaps prematurely, stated) then there is no criminal act.
Sorry you mistakenly dtected any patronization in my post. |
Foul play and criminal act are not congruent. Supposing I would forget the implications of my own argument is patronizing. Father. Law's not your thing. That's all. Ruling out foul play says, "No prior entanglement/Passion" How the passion will be rationalized is all that remains. Given the investigator hasn't buried some cell phones or taken a bribe. What's sad to me is a prevailing admonition (not from you) riding a bicycle in Saudi Arabia is crime enough to invoke...The Monkey Sphere. |
O.K., how about you hear a few things from someone who actually has a law degree.
First of all, the cop was speaking in Arabic, not English, and who knows what he actually said. Also bear in mind that much of the journalist work in the Gulf is done by people speaking Indian English, which has its own turns of phrase and peculiarities.
"Foul play," at any rate, is not a legal concept and it is pointless to discuss it in a legal context and attempt to define it.
For an act to be considered a crime, it has to satisfy two elements: (1) Actus reus (the guilty act), and (2) mens rea (the guilty mind, i.e. intent), except in the strict liability cases.
If the driver turned his vehicle around and headed for the cyclist, the only defense he might have is diminished responsibility, whose effect is to mitigate the mens rea (and, at sentencing, get him sent to the funny house rather than the chopping block).
I find the officer's statement odd, to say the least. Unless he meant that there had been no prior history between the victim and alleged suspect - and this was lost in translation or he had not chosen his words carefully -, it was an incredibly stupid thing to say and gives a lot of ammunition to the many who see the Saudi criminal justice system as, well, "lacking," to put it charitably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear 7aretan,
Thank you for that very informative post. I suspect you are likely right on many points, especially with regard to this:
"First of all, the cop was speaking in Arabic, not English, and who knows what he actually said. Also bear in mind that much of the journalist work in the Gulf is done by people speaking Indian English, which has its own turns of phrase and peculiarities."
And the fact that you have a law degree adds a lot of weight to what you wrote.
My only question would be this: did any of the courses you took to obtain that degree cover the legal system as it is practiced (or not) in Saudi?
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
007
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 2684
Location: UK/Veteran of the Magic Kingdom
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I suggest that (father and son!  ) refer their dispute about the fate of bicyle's owner to the U.S. Supreme Court of Justice!
The Magic Kingdom does not recognize the laws of the US federal or state court systems! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lazycomputerkids
Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 360
Location: Tabuk
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 7atetan wrote: |
| O.K., how about you hear a few things from someone who actually has a law degree. |
puh-leez
Foul-play is outside the "concepts" of court usage, but ubiquitous. It indicates. It's language. Pointy. Yeah, intent. You're late. Last I looked, Latin demarcation makes for peculiar Arabic translation Mr. Lost in Translation Munitions Metaphor. Your law degree could stand a tad more movie watching. A priori my socio-textual rear-view, Charity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
