Since we're being pedantic
I'd also like to point out that the word electrocute means to kill by electric shock, not to receive an electric shock.

You cannot have been electrocuted and be able to post about it on the internet.
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Fri 13 Feb 2009, 21:00, 1 reply)

Ah
But I can use it in the sense of "something which is the process of killing you" rather than "something that has killed you", because the sentence strucure implies that the electrocution was unsuccessful.
( MatJ LOOK, Fri 13 Feb 2009, 21:15, closed)

Are you in the civil service?

( monkeybananaraffle, Fri 13 Feb 2009, 21:20, closed)

No
Thank God, No I am not. I'm a student though, which is nearly as bad.
( MatJ LOOK, Sat 14 Feb 2009, 6:42, closed)

Unless it actually killed you
it's not in the process of killing you. Something that is in the process of killing you has to be successful for anyone to know that it was in the process of killing you. If it doesn't kill you, then it was just in the process of injuring you.

It could only be a failed attempt to electrocute someone if a conscious being were deliberately trying to kill with electricity. otherwise it's just a bunch of stuff that happened.

In exactly the same sense that I was not in the process of banging your mum until penetration occured. Everything before that was merely preparatory.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Fri 13 Feb 2009, 22:11, closed)

Ah part 2
Only if you are retelling the tale in the present tense and are recounting you thoughts at that time. Otherwise, being around to tell the tale precludes the use of the word.

Misuse of "electrocution" is one of my pet hates, so I'm with you on that.
( SteamedCleaner, Fri 13 Feb 2009, 22:14, closed)