What does the available video footage show about physical contact between Ross and Renee Good’s vehicle?

1. What the agent’s phone video shows in plain view

The video obtained from the agent’s cellphone opens with the officer walking around and filming Good’s vehicle and registration before he moves to a position near the front-left corner of the SUV; from that perspective the clip captures the vehicle beginning to reverse and then move forward while the agent draws and fires—one shot pierces the windshield as the car passes by ^{[4] [1] [5]}.

2. What synchronized, multi-angle reconstructions conclude

News organizations and forensic teams that synchronized several angles conclude the visual record does not support the claim that Ross was run over: The New York Times’ frame-by-frame synchronization and Reuters’ independent verification both report that while one raw angle can look like the agent is struck, alignment of clips shows his feet positioned away from the SUV and no footage shows the car physically running him over ^{[2] [1] [6]}.

3. Why some raw angles look different and why that matters

Certain bystander clips—grainy, tilted, and recorded at different frame rates—can create an optical illusion in single views that the vehicle makes contact with the agent; analysts explicitly warn that an angle where it “looks like” a strike can be reconciled with other clips to show no contact once synchronized, and investigators stress the need to compare timestamps, perspectives and motion-cues rather than rely on one unaligned frame ^{[6] [7] [3]}.

4. Contradictory official claims and expert readings of the same footage

Federal officials and DHS spokespeople have characterized the footage as showing a vehicle “weaponized” against agents, citing the agent’s phone clip, while independent security and forensic analysts and multiple newsrooms say the same footage does not provide clear visual evidence the agent was struck or about to be run over; those differing interpretations reflect competing emphases—official accounts on perceived threat and agency justification, analysts on precise visual alignment and motion evidence ^{[8] [2] [9]}.

5. What the footage cannot definitively show

Even the best-synchronized public footage has limits: it does not incontrovertibly capture exact distances between Ross and the SUV’s front bumper at every microsecond, nor does it silently prove subjective intent or perceived imminent harm—questions that require ballistic, vehicle-speed, body-position and other investigative evidence beyond open-source video alone ^{[3] [10]}.

6. Forensic observations about Ross’s positioning and agency tactics

Video analysts note Ross moved from the vehicle’s side toward its front while filming, a positioning that placed him in the vehicle’s potential path as it moved; commentators and tactical experts have argued that occupying that space increased the risk of entanglement and that his dominant hand was holding a phone prior to switching hands to draw his weapon, observations used to question tactical choices regardless of whether physical contact occurred ^{[10] [5]}.

Conclusion

The publicly available video ensemble—agent phone footage plus multiple bystander and surveillance clips—shows the agent standing in front of the SUV as it moved and shows him firing as the vehicle passed; forensic synchronization and independent newsroom reconstructions conclude there is no clear visual evidence in those clips that Ross was run over or physically struck by Renee Good’s vehicle, while raw single-angle views and official statements have produced conflicting interpretations that the footage alone cannot fully resolve without further forensic investigation ^{[2] [1] [6]}.