I could not agree more. Child Abuse is a specific-intent crime, it requires one to act knowingly or recklessly during the commission of an offense where the knowing or reckless behavior is the LONE reason that a child is injured. Misunderstanding the signal of the guard is the EXACT OPPOSITE of reckless conduct, and the 'knowingly' element literally can not even be argued. Was the driver careless? Absolutely. But his thought process, which is the ONLY one that matters as it's HIS mental state that is being questioned, clearly deviates from what any reasonable fact-finder would determine if they looked at the entire context of the events. The law is clear, both the injury to the child and the thought process that directed the driver to undertake his injurious actions, BOTH must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be guilty. How on Earth did this case ever make it past a preliminary hearing? Clearly the DA knew what the cop was going to testify about!!