1) This is often used colloquially to mean 'used the accelerator'. In the very literal sense, yes, you must accelerate, but you can use the car's idle to reve

1) This is often used colloquially to mean 'used the accelerator'. In the very literal sense, yes, you must accelerate, but you can use the car's idle to reverse, rather than pressing the gas. I don't normally hit the gas pedal just to back up and I would know that doing so was dangerous if there were people around. Moreover they knew (or should have known) that people were nearby if they were fleeing, otherwise they had no reason to hurry. 2) This is possible which is why I said it merely reduces (rather than eliminates) the accident excuse. For 3-4, I think it will come down to what the evidence shows about their intent. I found this explanation of Nevada law - http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-offense/nevada-aggravated-assault-laws http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defe... Tesla did give evidence of intent which the RGJ story did not rebut (accelerating in reverse & striking a person in front of them) and having injured two people at two different times is weak evidence against it being purely accidental. So it probably will come down to what can be shown regarding the driver's intent. Meanwhile, the passenger appears to only be on the hook for trespass, according to the reports.