View Full Version : New Texas DUI Penalty.
Averageman
09-04-23, 09:14
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2023/09/03/texas-shakes-up-drunk-driving-laws-kill-a-parent-and-pay-their-child-support-n2163387
A new Texas law recently went into effect that would impose further consequences on drunk drivers. The legislation, known as Bentley’s Law, mandates that individuals who kill a child’s parents because they were driving while intoxicated will be liable for paying child support.
Texas drunken drivers who kill a child’s parent or guardian in a crash are now liable to pay child support, according to legislation that went into effect Friday.
Texas House Bill 393, also known as Bentley's Law, was first filed Nov. 14 of last year. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill June 2.
"Any time a parent passes is tragic, but a death at the hands of a drunk driver is especially heinous," the Republican governor wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. "I was proud to sign HB 393 into law this year to require offenders to pay child support for the children of their victims."
According to the law, intoxicated manslaughter culprits are only on the hook until the child turns 18 years old or finishes high school.
Sounds like Justice to me.
I heard about this a while back. What if the person killed is a deadbeat who never paid a dime and has thousands in arrears? Is the perp responsible for that back support the deadbeat "could" have paid? Is it only for the time of the incident going forward? What if the person killed was making bank and the perp is broke anyway? What if there was previous CS set? Is it based on the perp's wages, which they are probably going to lose employment anyway, due to the conviction? While I am all for punishment, this just seems like a whole new set of problems. Wouldn't the CS be deferred until the perp is out of jail? What if the kid ages out before he is released? Makes my head spin.
Averageman
09-04-23, 11:20
I heard about this a while back. What if the person killed is a deadbeat who never paid a dime and has thousands in arrears? Is the perp responsible for that back support the deadbeat "could" have paid? Is it only for the time of the incident going forward? What if the person killed was making bank and the perp is broke anyway? What if there was previous CS set? Is it based on the perp's wages, which they are probably going to lose employment anyway, due to the conviction? While I am all for punishment, this just seems like a whole new set of problems. Wouldn't the CS be deferred until the perp is out of jail? What if the kid ages out before he is released? Makes my head spin.
I would say those kind of problems come with being a crimminal.
Don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating for the criminal. I am merely attempting to wrap my head around the admin/bureaucracy of putting this into practice.
Averageman
09-04-23, 11:38
They will likely have someone sit down and mediate, but I'm hoping even with a moderate mediator it burns and stings everytime a payment is made.
Honestly if you hit a deadbeat? Yeah you won the bonus round and get to pay all the back payments too.
ThirdWatcher
09-04-23, 13:32
Don’t drink and drive.
I heard about this a while back. What if the person killed is a deadbeat who never paid a dime and has thousands in arrears? Is the perp responsible for that back support the deadbeat "could" have paid? Is it only for the time of the incident going forward? What if the person killed was making bank and the perp is broke anyway? What if there was previous CS set? Is it based on the perp's wages, which they are probably going to lose employment anyway, due to the conviction? While I am all for punishment, this just seems like a whole new set of problems. Wouldn't the CS be deferred until the perp is out of jail? What if the kid ages out before he is released? Makes my head spin.
Guessing if the perp is connected the penalty won't apply.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/ethan-couch-affluenza-10-years-since-deadly-drunk-driving-crash/287-a8ea72a1-592e-49dd-a097-fd1bb80e237e
Averageman
09-04-23, 13:45
Guessing if the perp is connected the penalty won't apply.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/ethan-couch-affluenza-10-years-since-deadly-drunk-driving-crash/287-a8ea72a1-592e-49dd-a097-fd1bb80e237e
It's kind of way after the fact isn't it?
I think it's a good Law, full of little things to make the guilty miserable. I can only hope it is used for good and applys to all.
It's kind of way after the fact isn't it?
I think it's a good Law, full of little things to make the guilty miserable. I can only hope it is used for good and applys to all.
Not saying the dui child support law should apply to him retroactively, just pointing out how the connected are frequently not punished.
Hope that if a Porsche driver kills a child's parents while smoking crack at 172mph they get held accountable, but not going to hold my breath.
Don’t drink and drive.
When I was on third watch I hated DUI/ DWIs with a passion. I have zero sympathy for the fools out there driving drunk.
Averageman
09-04-23, 16:54
When I was on third watch I hated DUI/ DWIs with a passion. I have zero sympathy for the fools out there driving drunk.
Someone told me one time that after 2100 hrs 20% of the people on the road are intoxicated and that doubles on weekends and Holidays.
El Vaquero
09-04-23, 18:10
I heard about this a while back. What if the person killed is a deadbeat who never paid a dime and has thousands in arrears? Is the perp responsible for that back support the deadbeat "could" have paid? Is it only for the time of the incident going forward? What if the person killed was making bank and the perp is broke anyway? What if there was previous CS set? Is it based on the perp's wages, which they are probably going to lose employment anyway, due to the conviction? While I am all for punishment, this just seems like a whole new set of problems. Wouldn't the CS be deferred until the perp is out of jail? What if the kid ages out before he is released? Makes my head spin.
I feel what you’re throwing down and the passing of this law seems in line with a lot of other laws the Texas legislature has been passing over the past few years where I don’t think they’re running all the possible scenarios and they pass the bill without too much thought.
But I like it and think it’s a great thing. Let’s look at extending similar laws to other crimes as well. In the day and age old slap on the wrist punishments maybe a hit to the old pocketbook will make a difference. The majority of DWI suspects are not your indigent deadbeats.
. The majority of DWI suspects are not your indigent deadbeats.
If I remember right when I looked at a dui study, dui incident numbers had the number of offenders by age ramping up in the late 20s and peaking by 45 to 50 before severely dropping off around 60. Much different than most ad campaigns stating/insinuating teens early 20's and very much in line with what a couple of EMT guys I used to shoot matches with indicated had been their experience.
I heard about this a while back. What if the person killed is a deadbeat who never paid a dime and has thousands in arrears? Is the perp responsible for that back support the deadbeat "could" have paid? Is it only for the time of the incident going forward? What if the person killed was making bank and the perp is broke anyway? What if there was previous CS set? Is it based on the perp's wages, which they are probably going to lose employment anyway, due to the conviction? While I am all for punishment, this just seems like a whole new set of problems. Wouldn't the CS be deferred until the perp is out of jail? What if the kid ages out before he is released? Makes my head spin.
Don't drive drunk.
But honestly, the victim being a parent should be no more or no less than the victim being a single person with no kids. You still killed somebody with your drunken stupidity. Rich, poor, tall, short, kids, no kids, shouldn't matter. We are assigning life values to victims and that's BS. A victim is a victim is a victim, they are all equally worthy of justice when killed by somebody like a person driving under the influence.
When I was on third watch I hated DUI/ DWIs with a passion. I have zero sympathy for the fools out there driving drunk.
It only takes knowing (or having known) one person killed by a drunk driver to get there. I have 3.
Drunk drivers are one of the few people I would not attempt to save from a burning wreck. Of course you'd have to somehow know they are DUI so it's one of those things I'd still probably attempt.
SomeOtherGuy
09-04-23, 20:54
Glad to see all the comments about DUI drivers, and Steyr I did see yours in particular. This issue is VERY personal to me because my wife's parents were killed by a super-drunk driver (.34, second offense at around that level) between our engagement and our wedding. My wife was a young adult at the time, and her brother was just 19, both in college and very badly affected by having both parents suddenly and tragically killed.
Let me tell you, if you ever get a knock on the door after midnight and find a police sergeant accompanied by a priest, you won't forget the experience.
My father never met my wife's parents, all of us missed out from family relationships, and it's kinda trivial but the whole wedding and honeymoon had a black cloud over it, far more for my wife than for me. Her younger brother was affected at least as much, maybe more even.
I'm not going to beat my chest about DUI being the worst possible crime (it isn't), but it is definitely a bad one, and is not taken seriously enough in much of the country even now. The guy who killed my wife's parents served only 2 1/2 years in prison, and the prosecutor told us we were lucky he got convicted at all in that rural county. I mean, he had only been drinking for two days straight from open til close at the same bar, after all. Lots of total BS hillbilly lying for the local guy in the case, ironic since her parents didn't live very far away and were neither wealthy nor very different, OTHER than not driving drunk. I remember that a father-son paramedic team that was on scene gave 100% opposite testimony from each other, son truthfully reporting how drunk the guy was, father inexplicably lying that he had no signs of drunkenness. Closed casket funeral at the funeral director's strong recommendation; F-250 meets Saturn was a horrific mess. None of us viewed the bodies, but I still have photos of the wrecked car.
And it really stung that just a few months later there was a nearly identical DUI death/murder in Oakland County (metro Detroit rich suburb) where a mom and two teen boys were killed mid-afternoon by a different POS who had been day drinking and was somewhere around .32 driving his Tahoe. That equally at-fault POS got decades in prison due to a different legal environment, no difference in culpability.
Anyway, the Texas law seems entirely reasonable. FWIW my wife and her brother would not have benefited as they were young adults, but we are still, now, getting regular but puny checks from the county court system for the ordered restitution for funeral costs. It's more than 15 years later and I'm not sure if it hurts the POS more to be garnished the money or hurts my wife more to get the checks and be reminded of everything. She still spontaneously cries about her parents' death a few times a year, after all these years since.
Don't drive drunk.
But honestly, the victim being a parent should be no more or no less than the victim being a single person with no kids. You still killed somebody with your drunken stupidity. Rich, poor, tall, short, kids, no kids, shouldn't matter. We are assigning life values to victims and that's BS. A victim is a victim is a victim, they are all equally worthy of justice when killed by somebody like a person driving under the influence.
No, if there was a fine or something based on the victim's kids that would be unfair. But this is a compensatory measure, very limited since it only goes til each kid of the dead victim turns 18. It's like civil damages. I don't see any moral or legal problem with this.
I agree with this until........
If someone is using prescription meds required to stay alive (think insulin) sometimes they have a loss of function due to blood sugar being low. It's not like they purposely got into that condition but on the small chance that does happen, by law they are driving under the influence. A percentage of the population are diabetics so one of them could easily run into this situation and I believe this law is a little strong for those people.
Again drinkers/druggies that purposely take something to get "high" this is fine for. I just think those on prescription meds (not narcotics) should get some kind of consideration, even though they accidentally killed someone.
I am not sure what that consideration should be, since they did kill someone, just something a little less severe than this.
ChattanoogaPhil
09-05-23, 11:10
I heard about this a while back. What if the person killed is a deadbeat who never paid a dime and has thousands in arrears? Is the perp responsible for that back support the deadbeat "could" have paid? Is it only for the time of the incident going forward? What if the person killed was making bank and the perp is broke anyway? What if there was previous CS set? Is it based on the perp's wages, which they are probably going to lose employment anyway, due to the conviction? While I am all for punishment, this just seems like a whole new set of problems. Wouldn't the CS be deferred until the perp is out of jail? What if the kid ages out before he is released? Makes my head spin.
I think it's only meant to provide a path for the surviving parent or guardian to collect if a person of means is convicted. It's not going to make much difference if the perp is among the conga line of financial zeros drunk and behind the wheel. On the other hand, if Hunter runs over a parent while driving in a drunken stupor there's now a codified path to force him to sell a painting.
So, if a woman living in section 8 housing, off WIC (food stamps), EBT, (and whatever other government handouts that can be received) drives drunk and kills a parent then they are going to reduce the WIC & EBT as a means of payment? Right.
I agree with this until........
If someone is using prescription meds required to stay alive (think insulin) sometimes they have a loss of function due to blood sugar being low. It's not like they purposely got into that condition but on the small chance that does happen, by law they are driving under the influence. A percentage of the population are diabetics so one of them could easily run into this situation and I believe this law is a little strong for those people.
Again drinkers/druggies that purposely take something to get "high" this is fine for. I just think those on prescription meds (not narcotics) should get some kind of consideration, even though they accidentally killed someone.
I am not sure what that consideration should be, since they did kill someone, just something a little less severe than this.
I have no problem with that so long as some form of gross negligence wasn't involved. To me it's an unintended medical crisis, similar to taking a heart attack while driving.
I have no problem with that so long as some form of gross negligence wasn't involved. To me it's an unintended medical crisis, similar to taking a heart attack while driving.I agree with what you are saying.
Averageman
09-05-23, 16:35
I agree with what you are saying.
I was never worried about that, that's an honest emergency.
What scares me is guys that drink so much that at 10:00 they would blow a DUI. Those guy's who drink at lunch and then go to the club for a couple hours, then head home?
Those are the ones that scare me.
I was never worried about that, that's an honest emergency.
What scares me is guys that drink so much that at 10:00 they would blow a DUI. Those guy's who drink at lunch and then go to the club for a couple hours, then head home?
Those are the ones that scare me.I agree with you also.
I was never worried about that, that's an honest emergency.
What scares me is guys that drink so much that at 10:00 they would blow a DUI. Those guy's who drink at lunch and then go to the club for a couple hours, then head home?
Those are the ones that scare me.
If they have done it often enough and long enough, they might be ok(obviously not ideally or legally) to drive.
If they have done it often enough and long enough, they might be ok(obviously not ideally or legally) to drive.
That sounds exactly like a heroin user who insists "I can handle my high." Just because "impaired" has become their "normal" doesn't make them safe drivers. Their reflexes and judgement are impaired, gaining a level of tolerance doesn't make you "not impaired."
That sounds exactly like a heroin user who insists "I can handle my high." Just because "impaired" has become their "normal" doesn't make them safe drivers. Their reflexes and judgement are impaired, gaining a level of tolerance doesn't make you "not impaired."
That would be the "not ideally" part. It's how you get someone with a bac high enough to kill non drinkers still up and running around and I assume heroin and other drug users can hit the same level. Drop them to 0% too fast and they can end up a dead addict.
That sounds exactly like a heroin user who insists "I can handle my high." Just because "impaired" has become their "normal" doesn't make them safe drivers. Their reflexes and judgement are impaired, gaining a level of tolerance doesn't make you "not impaired."
Driving tired is also impaired
Don't drive drunk.
But honestly, the victim being a parent should be no more or no less than the victim being a single person with no kids. You still killed somebody with your drunken stupidity. Rich, poor, tall, short, kids, no kids, shouldn't matter. We are assigning life values to victims and that's BS. A victim is a victim is a victim, they are all equally worthy of justice when killed by somebody like a person driving under the influence.
Alcohol wasn't involved(have to wonder if that was checked), but the fine tied in to killing a pedestrian is $35.50 in Fort Wayne, IN.
https://apnews.com/article/fort-wayne-officer-guilty-fatal-pedestrian-crash-b55bc9b42a4a3923e367573db432872a
ThirdWatcher
09-07-23, 02:43
... Let me tell you, if you ever get a knock on the door after midnight and find a police sergeant accompanied by a priest, you won't forget the experience...
I can assure you that doing those next-of-kin notifications is the worst part of the job. The look of fear in people’s eyes when they first open the door is something I will never forget. I spent twenty-nine years dealing with that kind of carnage and it was a lot worse before seatbelts, airbags, safer cars, better engineered highways, et al but one is too many.
DUI crashes are totally preventable. I have no problem with forcing some drunk driver to pay child support to feed and clothe the child(ren) of an innocent parent he kills. Somebody has to provide for them and it’s usually the taxpayers.
I have no sympathy for any person that drives under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (to include prescription drugs). BTW, in my corner of the world a diabetic driver is not considered DUI.
That would be the "not ideally" part. It's how you get someone with a bac high enough to kill non drinkers still up and running around and I assume heroin and other drug users can hit the same level. Drop them to 0% too fast and they can end up a dead addict.
Finally...a program I can support.
Driving tired is also impaired
Sure. And while not exactly the same, if you are so zonked you are gonna be asleep at the wheel it's time to pull over before you kill somebody. And if you proceed on, we are into criminal negligence territory. And if that person tells me "I drive while I'm asleep all the time, I can handle it" I'm gonna ignore that BS too.
Thankfully the only time I personally did that, coming off a night shift, I feel asleep at a light and idled into the car in front of me at about 3mph. Lots of "shit...sorry I wasn't paying attention" but at least I was awake for the last few blocks till I got home.
BTW, in my corner of the world a diabetic driver is not considered DUI.
It may not be considered as for courtrooms, but treated as in the field isn't unusual.
https://www.koaa.com/news/news5-investigates/2019/06/04/police-admit-potential-error-in-dui-arrest-of-diabetic-man/
Averageman
09-07-23, 17:19
It may not be considered as for courtrooms, but treated as in the field isn't unusual.
https://www.koaa.com/news/news5-investigates/2019/06/04/police-admit-potential-error-in-dui-arrest-of-diabetic-man/
I worked with a guy in the Army who at one time was known to be a heavy drinker, he would be at work at get the shakes and everyone thought it was booze.
Come to find out he was a diabetic.
ThirdWatcher
09-09-23, 01:52
It may not be considered as for courtrooms, but treated as in the field isn't unusual.
It’s really not that common to run into drivers “under the influence” of diabetes. I had eight or nine years on the job when I stopped one on I-5 one night. We had been trained about the effects of diabetes in the Academy but I had never stopped one. I administered the Field Sobriety Tests (no PBT’s in those days) and he did not perform them to my satisfaction. I knew something was wrong, his reactions were slow and I wasn’t sure he was DUI but I could not in good conscience let him drive. I arrested him for DUI and transported him to the local PD for processing (only about a mile away). He blew .000 so I called Aid and it was determned he was Hypoglycemic. I un-arrested him and released him to eat a meal at a local restaurant. (I don’t recall even impounding his car.).
IMHO the worst thing an Officer can do is fail to un-arrest someone when the facts change. The Crimnal Justice System (in my corner of the world) has traditionally expected Officers to exercise good faith (and that’s the type of reputation an Officer should want to develop). The worst thing you can do is book someone undergoing a medical emergency.
SomeOtherGuy
09-09-23, 09:04
He blew .000 so I called Aid and it was determned he was Hypoglycemic. I un-arrested him and released him to eat a meal at a local restaurant. (I don’t recall even impounding his car.).
IMHO the worst thing an Officer can do is fail to un-arrest someone when the facts change. The Crimnal Justice System (in my corner of the world) has traditionally expected Officers to exercise good faith (and that’s the type of reputation an Officer should want to develop). The worst thing you can do is book someone undergoing a medical emergency.
This is in no way criticism, just helpful info. From two different paramedics I know: if someone is in that bad shape from hypoglycemia (from diabetes) they need some immediate carbs, preferably glucose or other sugar. It doesn't need to be much - a couple packets of sugar (like for coffee), a little bit of candy, literally anything with 10-20g of carbs is likely to improve their condition very quickly.
Diabetics who've experienced this before are likely carrying something for this purpose, whether it's a medical-packaged glucose thing (can't remember the name) or just some candy or something. But once someone is getting loopy, if they are also diabetic then it will get worse quickly without some immediate intervention.
You would mostly see this in type 1 diabetics (childhood / genetic). Who often are ordinary weight and have no clear indicators of diabetes unless they're wearing a medical alert bracelet.
ThirdWatcher
09-09-23, 11:08
Well, it’s all in fhe past now. You can be taught what to look for but you really need to see it real world circumstances in order to recognize it when you see it. Funny thing is I can recognize (or at least suspect it) when I see it on TV now (like on On Patrol Live, et al). In my experience though, it just wasn’t that common.
Well, it’s all in fhe past now. You can be taught what to look for but you really need to see it real world circumstances in order to recognize it when you see it. Funny thing is I can recognize (or at least suspect it) when I see it on TV now (like on On Patrol Live, et al). In my experience though, it just wasn’t that common.
I am sure it isn't common, but it has happened and at times with very bad outcomes.
Driving tired is also impaired
Call your local EMS agency and state regulatory body and remind them of this. Better yet, send an email, with a read receipt.
It may not be considered as for courtrooms, but treated as in the field isn't unusual.
https://www.koaa.com/news/news5-investigates/2019/06/04/police-admit-potential-error-in-dui-arrest-of-diabetic-man/
As Thurber was booked into jail, we now know he disclosed to medical intake staff that he was diabetic and on medication. For whatever reason, that information was not put in the arresting officer’s report.
Yeah... for whatever reason. LOL!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.