It probably should be something like "newspaper employees attempt to run over Tesla security guards".
"Run over"? The Tesla statement asserts they "accelerated into" the victims in both cases. Which is pretty nasty, but quite different from "running them over."
You can't even infer that it was an "attempt" to run over the persons who were struck, from the information given. Most likely the driver simply panicked, and was trying to make some crazy Y turn to get the hell out of there -- without of course slowing down to look at who might have been in front of, or behind him.
Not that that's any excuse. The driver's actions appear to have been highly reckless, to say the least. But there's no point in playing this episode up into something that it wasn't.
They did injure at least two people with a car and one of them was while reversing. Because you normally don't accelerate while reversing, I think it will be hard for them to call this an accident if the physical evidence corroborates Tesla's version of the story.
If it were just one person, I'd be more inclined to claim it was purely accidental. Once there were two separate incidents where they hit someone, the claim of it being an accident gets less credible. I can believe that they might have been afraid, but attacking someone with a car is deadly force (as is confirmed by the charges).
So, at minimum, they'd have to show that the Tesla guards were trying to kill them or inflict grievous bodily harm. The fact that they did not allege any injury to themselves is going to really hurt their case unless they have some kind of evidence that they reasonably feared for their lives.
I'll reserve judgement until we hear more facts, but the uncontested parts of the story currently indicate that the driver is in big trouble. If new facts or evidence do not come to light, I would reasonable expect them to go to prison, barring a plea deal. The passenger is probably ok, though, other than trespass.
(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.
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 -
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.
"Run over"? The Tesla statement asserts they "accelerated into" the victims in both cases. Which is pretty nasty, but quite different from "running them over."
You can't even infer that it was an "attempt" to run over the persons who were struck, from the information given. Most likely the driver simply panicked, and was trying to make some crazy Y turn to get the hell out of there -- without of course slowing down to look at who might have been in front of, or behind him.
Not that that's any excuse. The driver's actions appear to have been highly reckless, to say the least. But there's no point in playing this episode up into something that it wasn't.