Mph of renee goods car when shot
Executive summary
No reliable, published figure for the speed in miles per hour of Renee Good’s SUV at the moment she was shot exists in the public reporting examined for this piece; news organizations and forensic accounts describe motion and timing from multiple camera angles but stop short of providing an MPH estimate [1] [2] [3]. Reporting instead emphasizes short time intervals between observed wheel movement and gunfire, witness descriptions that the vehicle moved “slowly” or “sped” after shots, and disagreement about whether the agent was struck or endangered, all of which affect judgments about perceived threat but do not translate in the sources into a measured speed [1] [4] [5].
1. The evidentiary record: video, timestamps, and descriptive terms, not a speedometer reading
Published coverage rests on cellphone and officer video, metadata showing sub-second intervals between steering movement and shots, and witness statements that describe the SUV’s motion rather than reporting a quantified speed; for example, ABC’s metadata analysis times the wheel turning away from the agent just over one second before the first shot and records roughly 0.4 seconds between the first and second shots, but it does not convert those movements into miles per hour [1]. CBC and other outlets verified the agent’s phone video and replayed it to show perspective and timing, but none of the verified video releases or contemporaneous reporting attach an MPH number to the vehicle’s motion [2] [6].
2. How reporting characterizes the SUV’s motion—words that matter
Multiple outlets quote neighbors and on-scene observers saying Good’s car “backed up slowly and proceeded to pull forward pretty slowly,” while video descriptions also note that after the shots the vehicle “sped forward” into parked cars and a pole before coming to rest, but descriptive words like “slowly” or “sped” are inherently qualitative and differ across sources and witnesses [4] [6] [3]. Federal spokespeople framed the incident as the car “attempting to run over our law enforcement officers,” which implies a higher perceived level of danger, while journalists and forensic analysts caution the videos are inconclusive about contact and whether the agent was actually struck—points that affect assessments of whether the motion justified lethal force but still do not yield an MPH metric [7] [5].
3. Why reconstructing MPH from available footage is not straightforward and was not done in reporting
Converting visual footage into speed requires known distances, calibrated camera angles, frame rates, and chain-of-custody for video files; the news coverage available documents timestamps and sequencing but does not present a published forensic reconstruction that satisfies those methodological needs, and major outlets note the ambiguity around whether the agent was clipped or knocked off balance when the vehicle moved [1] [5]. Some analyses focus on fractions of a second—milliseconds between shots—not on distances traversed in that time, and expert commentary in the reporting centers on whether perceived threat met legal standards rather than on a speed measurement [1] [5].
4. Competing narratives shape the political and legal fallout, independent of an MPH value
Officials from DHS and ICE have emphasized self‑defense and imminent danger claims, while family, local witnesses, and many demonstrators stress that video shows a slow-moving SUV and an unnecessary, deadly shooting; both narratives rely on how viewers interpret motion and timing rather than on an objective speed figure, and reporting highlights how those competing framings have fueled protests and debate over the investigation [7] [8] [9]. Journalists from ABC, CNN, PBS and others repeatedly caution that videos are inconclusive on key points—underlining that absence of an MPH estimate in reporting is consequential because public judgments fill that gap [1] [3] [5].
5. Clear limitation and what would be needed to answer the MPH question authoritatively
The sources reviewed do not provide a calculated miles‑per‑hour figure; an authoritative MPH would require a published forensic reconstruction specifying camera calibration, measured distances on the street, verified frame rates or metadata, and peer review or official release of that analysis—elements not present in the cited coverage [2] [1] [6]. Until such a technical reconstruction is publicly released by investigators or independent experts and reported, any specific MPH claim would be speculative and outside the scope of the documented reporting [5] [9].