TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

If someone conceals really bad and goes somewhere that posts a sign and therefore doesn't deserve our business. It can be avoided by following the "don't do stupid things" and/or the "don't go stupid places" rules.

gringo pistolero wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

If someone conceals really bad and goes somewhere that posts a sign and therefore doesn't deserve our business. It can be avoided by following the "don't do stupid things" and/or the "don't go stupid places" rules.

Let's try one more time.

WildBill wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

If someone conceals really bad and goes somewhere that posts a sign and therefore doesn't deserve our business. It can be avoided by following the "don't do stupid things" and/or the "don't go stupid places" rules.

Let's try one more time.

OK, lets try this one. You are in a location with a valid-english, but poorly-worded-spanish 30.06 sign. A teenager wearing a hoodie and carrying tea and skittles, decides to start pounding your head into the sidewalk. You pull your gun, and shoot him.

You're subsequently arrested, and attempt to use the Castle law to justify your actions. However, the prosecutor points out that one of the three requirements for use of that defense is that the actor "was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used." He claims that you violated PC 30.06, a class-A misdemeanor. You now must argue that the 30.06 sign is invalid because the spanish part is wrongly worded. (If you are a native-english speaker, I think you may be in for an uphill battle! )

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

If someone conceals really bad and goes somewhere that posts a sign and therefore doesn't deserve our business. It can be avoided by following the "don't do stupid things" and/or the "don't go stupid places" rules.

Let's try one more time.

OK, lets try this one. You are in a location with a valid-english, but poorly-worded-spanish 30.06 sign. A teenager wearing a hoodie and carrying tea and skittles, decides to start pounding your head into the sidewalk. You pull your gun, and shoot him.

You're subsequently arrested, and attempt to use the Castle law to justify your actions. However, the prosecutor points out that one of the three requirements for use of that defense is that the actor "was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used." He claims that you violated PC 30.06, a class-A misdemeanor. You now must argue that the 30.06 sign is invalid because the spanish part is wrongly worded. (If you are a native-english speaker, I think you may be in for an uphill battle! )

I think that you should conceal better and not go into a place that doesn't want your money anyway.

It's a stretch, but that's a valid example and could happen. I am glad that we live in Texas.

It's a stretch because claiming that bad Spanish invalidates a 30.06sign is a stretch -- at least for English speakers.

But I don't understand your other comment -- you expect someone to defend themself without breaking concealment?

sjfcontrol wrote:It's a stretch because claiming that bad Spanish invalidates a 30.06sign is a stretch -- at least for English speakers.

But I don't understand your other comment -- you expect someone to defend themself without breaking concealment?

I was paraphrasing gringo pistolero.

Instead of worrying if it's legal or not, I spend my money where they don't post "stupid" signs.

hillfighter wrote:Instead of worrying if it's legal or not, I spend my money where they don't post "stupid" signs.

That's fine, but it doesn't fit the "discussion topic".

sjfcontrol wrote:

hillfighter wrote:Instead of worrying if it's legal or not, I spend my money where they don't post "stupid" signs.

That's fine, but it doesn't fit the "discussion topic".

Lo siento.

No me gustan los signos estúpidos.
No me gustan en una casa.
No me gustan con un ratón.

hillfighter wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

hillfighter wrote:Instead of worrying if it's legal or not, I spend my money where they don't post "stupid" signs.

That's fine, but it doesn't fit the "discussion topic".

Lo siento.

No me gustan los signos estúpidos.
No me gustan en una casa.
No me gustan con un ratón.

According to a Spanish to English program, that's...


I am sorry.

I don't like the stupid signs.
I do not like in a House.
I do not like using a mouse.


Interviewing for a Spanish Dr. Seuss?

WildBill wrote:I am all for a lively discussion. Can anyone think of a scenario where the "incorrect" Spanish translation would have a bearing on a case?

Sure, a person in El Paso (actually, anywhere in Texas but El paso seems to be one of the likeliest places, the Rio Grande Valley is also highly probable) who only reads and writes Spanish (may understand English when spoken, but not literate in the language) can have a CHL and get stopped for violating a 30.06 sign that has poor translation on it. How he got caught is totally irrelevant to whether or not the sign would be valid.

The English speaking/English illiterate Spanish Speaking person had to attend a CHL class whether taught in Spanish or English will know about the 30.06 sign and should respond appropriately. How many English speaking CHLs carry a copy of the language to compare the sign for letter perfect compliance? I know I sure don't. I don't carry a ruler to measure the size of the letters either.

My take is if they go to the trouble of posting a nearly compliant 30,06 sign then I'll go to the trouble to find another place to spend my money.

MoJo wrote:The English speaking/English illiterate Spanish Speaking person had to attend a CHL class whether taught in Spanish or English will know about the 30.06 sign and should respond appropriately. How many English speaking CHLs carry a copy of the language to compare the sign for letter perfect compliance? I know I sure don't. I don't carry a ruler to measure the size of the letters either.

My take is if they go to the trouble of posting a nearly compliant 30,06 sign then I'll go to the trouble to find another place to spend my money.

There it is!

One thing that Crossfire told us in my renewal class last Saturday was that if you're an english-speaker and the english portion of the sign is correct, it doesn't really matter if the spanish is incorrect. The sign is still compliant for you, and carrying past it would likely be viewed by law enforcement and the courts as equal to walking past a perfectly compliant sign. And the reverse would be true for spanish-speakers. If the wording, size, font, etc., are all correct in spanish but not in english, the spanish portion would still be a compliant sign for the purposes of a spanish-speaking CHL holder.

I suppose the logical extension of this argument is that if you're bilingual, it doesn't matter if either the english or spanish part of the sign is incorrect. As long as one or the other part of the sign were compliant, it would apply to you.