What video and bodycam footage has been released in the Renee Good shooting and what does it show?
Executive summary
A 47‑second video recorded on the cellphone of ICE agent Jonathan Ross — first published by Alpha News and later reposted by the Department of Homeland Security — is the primary newly released clip showing the fatal encounter with Renee Nicole Good; it captures the officer’s perspective, audio of the exchange and the moments when he fires three shots [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and frame‑by‑frame analysis of that clip alongside other available angles has shown contested interpretations of whether the agent was struck by the vehicle and whether Good’s car was “weaponized,” while officials continue to seek and review additional footage from bystanders and other cameras [4] [5] [6].
1. The footage that has been released: an agent’s cellphone video, 47 seconds long
The only widely circulated, newly released recording that shows the immediate shooting is a 47‑second clip filmed by the ICE officer who fired; Alpha News published it and DHS confirmed its authenticity when it reposted the video [1] [2] [5]. Multiple outlets describe the same short clip as taken from the officer’s handheld phone as he approaches Renee Good’s SUV and then turns the camera toward the vehicle just before the shots are fired [6] [3].
2. What the officer’s phone video shows, moment by moment
The cellphone clip shows Good seated in the driver’s seat of a maroon Honda Pilot with a siren audible, the officer walking around the front of the SUV with his phone raised, a brief verbal exchange in which Good is heard saying “I’m not mad at you” and “everything’s fine,” then the vehicle pulling forward while the officer is positioned near the front passenger side and the officer firing three times [5] [2] [6]. News organizations that synchronized the agent’s clip with other footage concluded the video establishes positioning and escalation details but did not show the agent being run over [4].
3. Disputes about the clip’s source and what it proves
Some reporting and commentary initially conflated “bodycam” with the officer’s perspective; Poynter noted that the circulated footage is a handheld cellphone video rather than body‑worn camera footage [7]. That distinction matters because critics point out ICE policy calls for body‑worn cameras during enforcement operations and those files are treated differently by investigators; OPB flagged that bodycam activation is expected under ICE directives and must be preserved for serious incidents [1].
4. Conflicting narratives from officials and local leaders
The Department of Homeland Security, citing the agent’s video, has said the footage “corroborates” its initial account that Good impeded law enforcement and “weaponized her vehicle,” and that the officer feared for his life [2] [5]. By contrast, Minneapolis leaders and some local officials dispute that reading: the city’s mayor described the federal account as “garbage” after viewing video, and local prosecutors publicly asked the community to submit any additional recordings to ensure investigators could see all angles [3] [1].
5. What other video angles exist and investigative next steps
Beyond the agent’s cellphone clip, local media have posted side‑by‑side compilations and bystander footage showing different vantage points, and prosecutors have requested public submissions of any recordings, indicating more angles may emerge [8] [1]. The New York Times’ frame‑by‑frame analysis that combined the agent’s phone video with other clips concluded that available visual evidence “shows no indication” the agent was run over, but also noted more footage could refine the timeline and force assessment [4].
6. Limits of the public record so far
Public reporting to date does not show any released body‑worn camera footage from the agent; the primary released file is the agent’s handheld phone video and other published angles come from bystanders and compiled footage — if other official bodycam files exist or will be released, those have not been documented in the reporting summarized here [7] [1]. Given those limits, definitive judgments about intent, threat perception and compliance with ICE use‑of‑force policy await the full investigative record.