Unspec7

Unspec7 t1_jbgxr53 wrote

Sure, you gave me factual statements, but there was no inferences to be drawn so I ignored it. How do you know that the 5 states with the highest rate of hit and runs aren't also the states with the highest rate of identification? You only gave me a national statistic for identification, not a state-by-state break down.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbgxeo9 wrote

>I would probably say that we don’t have enough evidence at this point (or at least it is too tenuous) to conclude anything.

I agree. Insurance rates are a pretty tenuous connection as we all know how complicated premium calculations can be. A dog barks in Ohio and rates go up in Mississippi. I figured it might be somewhat illustrative, but it's still only a potential correlation, and not a causation.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbgx7uj wrote

>Honestly I was surprised by this data. What do you think explains it?

There's a lot of factors that go into insurance premium calculation. For example, for states that don't require vehicle inspections, insurance might be higher due to a higher risk of injury due to potentially unsafe vehicles. No fault states might see higher premiums due to being unable to recover from the other side. Etc.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbgfnry wrote

Sure. Car insurance rates will give us a rough idea, since premiums go up if hit and run identifications go down, as insurance companies wouldn't be able to recover costs from the runner.

Data source

Average insurance premium for states that do not require a front plate: $2215.29

Average insurance premium for states that do require a front plate: $2047.38

An 8% difference, and that's assuming the only reason for the difference is hit and run rates, which is obviously not true. Given that even assuming a worst case and unrealistic scenario only results in a 8% difference, I think it's safe to say that there is no practical difference between the two groups.

1

Unspec7 t1_jbga67l wrote

The following states don't require front plates:

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Michigan
  • Mississippi
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Pennsylvania
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee
  • West Virginia

Do you have evidence showing that hit and run identification rates are significantly different between NJ and these sates?

−3

Unspec7 t1_jatujhs wrote

They do not have jurisdiction over parking violations. Not trying to flame you or anything, but think about it for a second:

The democratically elected city council/mayor (their "boss") specifically takes away their jurisdiction and gives it to a separate department. Do we really want to create a precedent where the police department just usurps the decision of the council/mayor and re-assumes jurisdiction? That doesn't seem like a good idea.

−1

Unspec7 t1_jattogw wrote

Yep. They're on the same "level" as police and firefighters.

>Department of Public Safety comprises the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (O.E.M.), Parking Enforcement, and Fire Prevention

5

Unspec7 t1_jatrpya wrote

Moving violations are against the driver (and thus assigns points to their licenses, if applicable), not the vehicle, as they are punishing the direct actions of the driver. Parking tickets are tied to the vehicle, thus don't need to find the driver, as they are specifically punishing the vehicle itself and how it has been parked.

Edit: Keep in mind, this is a little unique to JC. JCPD doesn't have jurisdiction over parking offenses, so the only thing they can give someone is a traffic ticket. Parking offenses are handed out by JC Division of Parking.

0

Unspec7 t1_jaszbqz wrote

Police can only ticket the driver. You're right that PD can totally just ticket them for obstructing traffic, but that means you'd have to wait until the driver comes back at who knows when and then ticket them. Multiply by 10-15 cars? That's a lot of time just spent sitting around on tax payer money waiting for the drivers.

Edit: This is specific to JC, as JCPD cannot hand out parking tickets, only traffic tickets.

−7

Unspec7 t1_jarw8me wrote

Might be wrong here, but didn't JC make the decision to separate parking enforcement jurisdiction from JCPD to Jersey City Division of Parking? If that is the case, can JCPD even do anything if they wanted to?

18

Unspec7 t1_izl2v4k wrote

If an employer has specifically instructed its employees to not confront a thief, confronting a thief would most likely no longer be serving the purposes of your employer, regardless of how much goodwill you're trying to show the big man. As such, it would be outside their scope of employment, regardless of uniform or premise.

This is speaking specifically of intentional torts, since injuring a thief likely involved battery.

1

Unspec7 t1_izk2blx wrote

Depends on the instructions the company gives the employees. Employers are strictly liable (under respondeat superior doctrine) for any torts committed by employees so long as employees are operating within the scope of their employment - if their job specifically says "do not confront thieves", and they still do, they're not operating within the scope of their employment anymore and are personally liable.

1