What did the New York Times video reconstruction conclude about the path of Renee Good’s vehicle?

1. What the Times reconstructed and why it matters

The New York Times synchronized and examined multiple bystander and agency videos to create a frame‑by‑frame reconstruction of the encounter; its reconstruction shows the SUV’s front wheels angled away from the ICE agent at the instant the agent fired, and that in those synchronized views the agent was not in the direct path of the vehicle when the shots were fired, contradicting the administration’s initial account that he had been run over or was being run down ^{[1] [2]}. The Times’ technical approach—combining different camera angles to resolve relative positions—was presented as dispositive on the narrow factual question of whether the agent stood in the vehicle’s path when he opened fire ^[1].

2. Corroboration from independent reconstructions and analysis

Independent investigations and digital-reconstruction groups reached similar conclusions: Index, a digital investigations NGO, published a 3D preliminary analysis finding the agent was not in the SUV’s path when shots were fired and concluded the shooter was not struck by the vehicle ^[5]. Other mainstream outlets reporting on the reconstructions noted that multiple credible video analyses “contradicted claims” that Good was attempting to run over the officer, reinforcing the Times’ core finding that the agent was not where federal officials said he had been hit ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Competing footage and alternative interpretations

Not all footage is unambiguous, and some released clips—including the agent’s own cellphone video and a grainier clip cited by outlets friendly to the administration—have been read differently: those who defend the agent say some angles show Good reversing and then accelerating forward toward the agent and that at least one angle “looks like” the agent is struck by the SUV ^{[6] [4]}. Conservative outlets and some social‑media posts have seized on the agent’s perspective video to argue the agent was endangered, while the Times and other outlets maintain that when all footage is synchronized the evidence does not support the claim the agent stood in the vehicle’s path ^{[6] [4] [1]}.

4. What the reconstruction does and does not settle

The Times’ reconstruction resolves a narrow physical question—wheel orientation and agent position relative to the vehicle at the moment of the shooting—and concludes the car did not hit the agent and turned away rather than striking him ^{[1] [7]}. It does not, by itself, settle legal questions about justification for deadly force, intent, or what occurred earlier in the interaction, and major outlets note that grainy or partial footage still leaves room for debate about motivations and split‑second perceptions that preceded the shots ^{[4] [3]}.

5. Context and the stakes of competing narratives

That the Times’ reconstruction aligns with other visual investigations has shifted the factual center of gravity in public debate away from the administration’s initial narrative that Good “ran” an agent over and toward a picture in which the car was pulling away or turning away when the officer fired; critics argue the reconstruction undermines the self‑defense claim, while supporters of the agent point to other angles and the traumatic history the agent reported to justify his response ^{[2] [6] [5]}. Reporting across outlets shows the raw footage can be—and has been—interpreted to support opposite political narratives, making the Times’ technical finding critical but not dispositive for all stakeholders ^{[7] [4]}.

The New York Times’ video reconstruction concluded the SUV’s wheels were turned away from the agent and that the agent was not in the direct path of Renee Good’s vehicle when he fired, a conclusion corroborated by other independent analyses but contested by partisan readings of alternate angles and the agent’s own cellphone footage ^{[1] [5] [6]}.