What specific timestamps and frame‑by‑frame differences do side‑by‑side videos show in the Renee Good case?
Executive summary
The public record of the Renee Good shooting includes multiple synchronized video angles and at least one detailed frame‑by‑frame analysis — most prominently by The New York Times — but the sources provided here do not publish a definitive list of exact timestamps for each frame (the Times says it synchronized footage and assessed frame‑by‑frame) [1]. What the available synchronized views consistently show, and where analysts disagree, are a handful of discrete, competing visual facts: where the ICE agent moved relative to Good’s SUV, the direction of the SUV’s wheels as it began to drive away, whether the agent was struck by the vehicle, and the timing and trajectory of the three shots fired [2] [3] [4].
1. What the synchronized, frame‑by‑frame work claims to show
The New York Times reports it synchronized newly available and existing videos to create a frame‑by‑frame reconstruction of the encounter that led to Good’s death, allowing analysts to time the agent’s movements and the car’s motion in precise sequence even if published articles do not include microsecond timestamps for public consumption [1]. Lawfare and other analysts using the same footage describe the first clear motion as the agent moving from the side of the Honda to its front while filming on his phone, then switching the phone hand as he draws his weapon; that sequence precedes three shots in quick succession as the SUV moves away and then crashes into a parked car and a light pole [3]. Multiple outlets report the three shots occurred within a remarkably short span — the critical events unfolding in roughly seven seconds with the shots fired in under one second — a compressed timeline that has driven competing interpretations about whether the agent faced imminent danger [5] [3].
2. Frame‑by‑frame differences emphasized by close versus distant angles
Analysts note a stark divergence between a grainier, distant angle and a closer, behind‑the‑SUV angle: the far‑down‑the‑street view appears to show the SUV making contact with the agent, which some initially read as the car “running over” him, while the closer rear view shows the agent crossing to the left of the vehicle and firing as the wheels were pointed to the right — indicating the vehicle was turning away from, not directly toward, him [2]. The New York Times and others conclude the distant view’s low resolution misleads about contact force; the behind‑vehicle footage indicates the agent was clipped or brushed by the front corner of the vehicle, not violently run over, and that he continued firing as Good drove past [2]. That divergence in what can be seen frame‑by‑frame is central to why analysts and officials reach different conclusions even when looking at the “same” incident [6].
3. Specific frame elements repeatedly highlighted by analysts
Close analyses repeatedly call out three visual facts: an officer tugging at the driver’s door and giving orders immediately before motion begins, the shooter repositioning from the side to the front of the vehicle while filming, and the SUV’s wheels visibly turning right as it moves — a combination used by some analysts to argue Good was steering away from the agent rather than charging him [7] [3] [4]. Multiple sources also note shots appear to penetrate both the windshield and the open driver’s side window as the car moves, and the shooter’s recorded audio captured expletive language at the moment of impact and firing [2] [7].
4. Where analyses disagree and why exact timestamps matter but are missing here
Disagreement centers on whether the agent was meaningfully struck and whether the movement constituted a weaponized vehicular attack; the distant grainy angle supports one reading while the closer angles and frame‑by‑frame reconstructions support another [2] [8]. The provided reports stress that the Times and other forensic analysts have performed synchronized, frame‑by‑frame work [1], but the sources collected here do not publish the precise timestamps or frame numbers required to reproduce a step‑by‑step, time‑coded forensic timeline for readers — a limit this account cannot overcome without access to the underlying synchronized video files or the Times’ detailed supplemental data.
5. Competing narratives and the role of selective frames
Government statements characterizing the vehicle as “weaponized” and framing the shooting as self‑defense have leaned on the most dramatic distant frames and selective language, while independent frame analyses and reporting stress the closer angles and sequential frames that undercut claims the agent was decisively run over — a contest between curated imagery and synchronized forensic reconstruction that fuels political dispute [9] [8] [4]. The videos, when compared side‑by‑side frame‑by‑frame, tell a nuanced but contested visual story: movements, wheel orientation, and the shooter’s positioning differ across angles in ways that materially affect legal and public judgments, and the precise, published timestamps needed to settle those disputes are not present in the sources assembled here [1] [2] [3].