To address your responses collectively:<p>(1) &quot;You normally don&#x27;t accelerate while reversing&quot; sounds odd to my ears: from my understanding of physics, one has to accelerate in the initial stages of moving either forward <i>or</i> backward.<p>(2) The first person was struck while recording the the car&#x27;s license number (i.e. from behind the car); this increases the chance that the driver didn&#x27;t see them.  The second person was struck while &quot;approaching&quot; the car; also increasing the chance that the driver didn&#x27;t see him.  (As opposed to say: standing ahead and at a safe distance from the car, firmly and without moving, gesturing the driver to stop).<p>(3) &quot;At minimum, they&#x27;d have to show that the Tesla guards were trying to kill them or inflict grievous bodily harm.&quot; -- No, they just have to say &quot;We thought we&#x27;d be caught, and our careers would be ruined -- so we panicked.  We beg our victims for forgiveness, and we beg the court for forbearance and mercy.&quot;<p>(4) I&#x27;m certainly not positing that this was an &quot;accident&quot; (let alone &quot;purely accidental&quot;).  My reading is that it was most likely an incident of reckless driving, triggered by the fact that the reporters knew they were caught red-handed, and were desperate to escape (and quite likely simply panicking).    And one can easily imagine scenarios where (in their haste) they simply didn&#x27;t see either of the 2 persons -- one of whom was <i>approaching</i> the car; the other who was standing <i>behind</i>; both perhaps from skew angles.<p>We both agree that the driver&#x27;s behavior was at least criminally negligent.  I just don&#x27;t see a need to introduce a narrative in which the driver <i>intentionally</i> or even <i>knowingly</i> struck either of the victims -- when the facts at hand do not, beyond a reasonable degree of doubt, support such an interpretation.