I'm not required to notify the court or its officers that I believe in jury nullification unless directly asked, which they aren't going to do. Of course they're going to kick me anyway based on employment so it's a non-issue.
Were I to sit on such a jury, my decision would rely entirely on the facts. IF the driver intentionally evaded barriers and broke traffic laws, then hit protesters with their vehicle, I'd probably vote to convict. IF it were proven that a driver intentionally targeted protesters or didn't use readily available means to avoid driving into protesters, I'd probably vote to convict.
If the driver was trapped through no fault of their own and couldn't escape a mob of protesters in direct contact with their vehicle without hitting some of them, I'd vote to exonerate regardless of the way the law was written. If you're a protester and you're beating on, slapping, standing on or otherwise menacing a vehicle's occupants, you're no longer a protester, you're a rioter.
I'd sit calmly if apprehensively in my locked vehicle, scanning for threats for as long as it took to get a clear path out of a non-threatening protest. The second they start attacking my vehicle with hands, feet, objects, etc., then I'll pick the path of least resistance and gtfo of there. My physical safety is not less important than theirs, regardless of how many of them there are.
I agree with this. If the protesters had a permit and the road was CLEARLY marked, even with troopers moving people off and the exit ahead of the protest, then the driver's going to have a hard time being innocent.
But keep in mind, people driving don't have the live tv feed going in their cars to know what crap is going on in the city. If they just all of a sudden find themselves in a mob that is attacking their car, I say give it the gas.
I wish our 'leaders' would come out and say this.