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]English
      0•10 months ago

      Yes, I agree people are allowed to do absolutely idiotic things without consequences.

      Drinking is a personal choice. Getting drunk affects more than yourself.

    • @[email protected]English
      -3•10 months ago

      Yeah, people should have the right to choose to drink, and then choose to drive, and “accidentally” kill someone.

      • @[email protected]
        7•10 months ago

        That isn’t what I said and you know it. Drinking is not something a person should have to justify to anyone but themselves. This is not an endorsement of drunk driving and no one assuming good faith would have assumed I was making one.

        You have a right to put a chemical into your own body. It only becomes an issue for those around you when A leads to B and B is other people either getting hurt or very nearly getting hurt.

        • @[email protected]English
          0•10 months ago

          Well, I didn’t get what you were saying. In this context, I don’t why tf anyone is even talking about infrastructure.

          And then your statement seemed like a non sequitur. So, I was just saying what my read of your statement was.

          I don’t think people normally say things like what I said, legitimately accusing the other of saying that. But as a hyperbolic expression, for the sake of highlighting a misunderstanding.