To address your responses collectively: (1) "You normally don't accelerate while reversing" sounds odd to my ears: from my understanding of physics, one has to

To address your responses collectively: (1) "You normally don't accelerate while reversing" sounds odd to my ears: from my understanding of physics, one has to accelerate in the initial stages of moving either forward or backward. (2) The first person was struck while recording the the car's license number (i.e. from behind the car); this increases the chance that the driver didn't see them. The second person was struck while "approaching" the car; also increasing the chance that the driver didn'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). (3) "At minimum, they'd have to show that the Tesla guards were trying to kill them or inflict grievous bodily harm." -- No, they just have to say "We thought we'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." (4) I'm certainly not positing that this was an "accident" (let alone "purely accidental"). 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't see either of the 2 persons -- one of whom was approaching the car; the other who was standing behind; both perhaps from skew angles. We both agree that the driver's behavior was at least criminally negligent. I just don't see a need to introduce a narrative in which the driver intentionally or even knowingly struck either of the victims -- when the facts at hand do not, beyond a reasonable degree of doubt, support such an interpretation.