What did The New York Times and Washington Post frame-by-frame analyses specifically conclude about the moments before shots were fired in the Renee Good shooting?
Executive summary
Two frame-by-frame investigations reached similar, specific conclusions about the split seconds before Renée Good was killed: The New York Times concluded that multi-angle synchronization shows the ICE agent was not in the path of Good’s SUV when he fired and that the vehicle’s wheels were turned away from him as shots were fired [1]; The Washington Post concluded the agent was able to step aside and fired at least two of the three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him, and that the videos do not clearly show whether the agent was struck [2] [3].
1. The New York Times: synchronized angles show the car turning away as the agent fires
The Times’ frame-by-frame visual forensics combined three distinct videos — including a behind-the-SUV clip and a balcony shot — and concluded that while a single grainy clip might appear to show the agent being hit, the synchronized, multi-angle view indicates the agent crossed to the SUV’s left, opened fire while the vehicle’s wheels were pointed to the right (away from him), and continued shooting as the car drove past, meaning he was not directly in the vehicle’s path when he fired [1] [4].
2. The Washington Post: agent sidesteps and fires from the side, with some ambiguity about contact
The Post’s visual-forensics team reached a closely aligned but slightly more cautious finding: its frame-by-frame review shows the SUV moved toward the agent, who was nonetheless able to move out of the way and then fired; at least two of the three rounds appear to be fired from the side of the car as it veered past, but the footage “does not clearly show whether the agent is struck,” a point the Post emphasized [2] [3].
3. Where the two analyses converge and diverge
Both organizations used multiple camera angles and synchronization to counter the misleading impression from individual clips that the agent was run over; both found the car’s motion and the agent’s position inconsistent with the agent being trapped in the vehicle’s direct path when he fired [1] [2]. They diverge in tone: the Times framed the multi-angle result as overturning the immediate “run‑over” narrative, while the Post highlighted that, despite showing the agent firing from the side as the vehicle passed, the footage remains inconclusive on contact and therefore on what the agent perceived in those fractions of a second [1] [3].
4. Additional findings, context, and the limits of video alone
Both outlets noted new footage that revealed exchanges between Good and officers in the moments before the shooting and published metadata and timing analyses showing extremely short intervals between movement and gunfire — fractions of a second that matter legally and perceptually [5] [6] [7]. But experts and fact-checkers cited by mainstream outlets warned that no amount of video can reveal the agent’s subjective state of mind at the moment of firing; legal justification hinges not only on where the car and agent were but on what the agent reasonably perceived in those milliseconds [8] [9].
5. Competing narratives, political stakes, and unanswered questions
These frame-by-frame reports directly challenge the administration’s early claim that the agent was being run over and therefore firing defensively, yet they do not resolve legal or moral judgments; federal officials insist the shots were defensive while critics call the visual forensics evidence indicating side-fired shots proof of unnecessary force [10] [4]. Both publications explicitly warned about the risk of single-angle misreadings and urged investigators to treat synchronized visual evidence as one crucial piece — not the whole — of determining criminal culpability, intent, and policy implications [1] [2] [8].