>Yes fear of being caught

Oh, I didn't realize the main reason I don't go out and rob a bank is because I'm scared of being caught.

You're basically implying that humans are nothing more than animals and the main thing separating us from animals is the law. We all know that's not true.

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.

>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.

>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.

>potentially embolden people to comit hit and runs.

Oh come on. For the vast majority of people, the primary decision between running and stay isn't because of a fear of being caught after the fact. People are generally good people and want to do the right thing.

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.

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?

I know. Still won't run a front plate though.

Eh. I'll keep mine off. Front plates serve no purpose.

Typically if you get pulled over for it, it's because they were going to pull you over for any reason. If you had a front plate, they'd pull you over for something else. It's not really specifically for the plate. The plate just gives them a reason.

99% of cops don't pull people over for just lack of front plate. I have not run one for the last 4 years and never had an issue.

For the dash one, that's typically so that they don't have to drill into their front bumper

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

>there's an invite-only app for some finance folks that allows them to control the lights on top of some skyscrapers just for funsies

To be fair though, the app is run and owned by the very people who own the actual buildings, Durst. What is the problem there?

Would you mind citing some cases? You're basically saying that case law is stating a bright line rule and contradicting a base principle of torts, which is that scope of employment has no bright line rules. I'd be interested to see the cases and their opinion.

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.

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.