Texas drunk drivers will now have to pay child support if they kill a parent, guardian | CNN
www.cnn.com
A new law in Texas requires convicted drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a child’s parent or guardian, according to House Bill 393.

A new law in Texas requires convicted drunk drivers to pay child support if they kill a child’s parent or guardian, according to House Bill 393.

The law, which went into effect Friday, says those convicted of intoxication manslaughter must pay restitution. The offender will be expected to make those payments until the child is 18 or until the child graduates from high school, “whichever is later,” the legislation says.

Intoxication manslaughter is defined by state law as a person operating “a motor vehicle in a public place, operates an aircraft, a watercraft, or an amusement ride, or assembles a mobile amusement ride; and is intoxicated and by reason of that intoxication causes the death of another by accident or mistake.”

  • @[email protected]
    30•1 year ago

    nah, cyclist here. people “walk” on vehicular manslaughter all the time. it’s super fucked up. commonly a suspended sentence is issued.

    • @aidan
      1•1 year ago

      Vehicular manslaughter !== Killing someone by drunk driving. Drunk driving is clear negligence, hitting someone entirely on accident shouldn’t ruin two lives. In those articles it doesn’t say anything about the driver being drunk

      • @huge_clock
        5•1 year ago

        criminal negligence causing death is manslaughter.

        • @aidan
          1•1 year ago

          Yes for drunk driving- I agree. My issue is saying that someones life being ruined if they weren’t impaired and made what was a genuine mistake.

        • @aidan
          3•1 year ago

          This guy was on drugs and frustrated because a “slow driver” ahead of him.

          Ah ok than should do jail time.

      • @PunnyName
        2•1 year ago

        It’s a combination of negligence and vehicular manslaughter.

        • @[email protected]
          2•1 year ago

          So if a person runs and appears out of nowhere in front of a moving car and it results in them being hit, the driver’s life should be ruined? It’s called accident for a reason, nobody wanted it.

          • @noreason
            2•1 year ago

            Yeah, I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a cyclist blow through a stop sign onto through an intersection where one road doesn’t have a stop sign.

            • @BilboBargains
              1•1 year ago

              It’s one of the many benefits of cycling. You get perfect visibility of the driver’s anguished expression while they wait in traffic. Unfortunately, the cyclist pays the ultimate price when the driver makes a mistake like having one too many drinky poos at the office party and getting behind the wheel.

        • @aidan
          2•1 year ago

          Or at least have the decency to let the victim’s family decide, don’t take it upon yourself to just casually forgive a mistake if it had no impact on you.

          No? If you robbed me I shouldn’t be able to decide your sentence.

          Why? Was the victim entirely innocent? Did it result in permanent injury or death of the victim(s)? Would it have been less dangerous if the one who produced the accident did not drive a car? Was the driver incapacitated by alcohol/drugs/anything else? If the answer to ANY of those is “yes”

          I strongly disagree with that, it is unfair to expect people to be infallible, obviously being under the influence is easy to avoid, and so is negligent. But say a mom’s driving and one of her kids stands up and starts doing something distracting just as a cyclist blows through a stop sign? Or one of many million more possible scenarios.