ICE Agent POV Video Rekindles Debate on Fatal Shooting (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: And now that new video, as I said, it is so crucial because it was filmed by the ICE agent involved, but also because in that it is that, it is providing an angle we have not seen before. And it does give a whole new perspective. It also, though, raises new questions. Kyung-La is going to go through this slowly, bit by bit, out front with this special investigation to look at every piece of video, that one and all the others, to say, what is the story here? And of course, I warn you, when you put all of these together, you will have to see what happened again and again.

[00:00:36] Speaker 2: For the first time, we are seeing the fatal Minneapolis shooting from the ICE officer's point of view, footage taken on his own cell phone. It's a critical angle of many cameras on the street that captured Renee Good's fatal encounter with ICE agent Jonathan Ross. Using surveillance footage, bystander video, and Ross's own phone, CNN's... synced multiple perspectives of the shooting and mapped this incident in 3D space. Taken together, they show the fullest picture yet of what happened that day. A home surveillance camera captures the moment Renee Good pulls up in a maroon-colored Honda SUV four minutes before the shooting. 20 seconds after she arrives, her passenger and wife, Becca, wearing a white beanie, gets out of Good's car. Good then parks the SUV perpendicular in the road. Here's how Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem... described what Good did.

[00:01:28] Speaker 3: Ice officers and agents approached the vehicle of the individual in question, who was blocking the officers in with her vehicle, and she had been stalking and impeding their work All throughout the day.

[00:01:39] Speaker 2: Available video doesn't show any possible contact Good may have had with ISE before this confrontation. What this video does show, is that for a few minutes, while she is perpendicular to the roadway, several vehicles drive by. Even large SUVs are able to drive around her as she moves back and forth on the road. Thank you. the street, and that includes this light-colored SUV. It slowly drives around Good's car from the rear and stops. Agent Jonathan Ross is recording video from his cell phone as he crosses in front of Good's car, recording as he sees her up close. She looks calm, and you can see both of her hands as she talks to the officer. Renee Good's wife, Becca, who had been the passenger in the car, approaches. Cell phone cameras on the street start recording as Ross walks around Good's car with Good's wife following. I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Renee Good backs her car up as the agent walks around the front of the vehicle. At the same time, on the other side, two more agents approach. One tries to open the door as Good backs up. Good's vehicle starts moving. From Ross's cell phone video, you see Becca, the woman in the white beanie, trying to get into the car again. You also see Renee Good turning the steering wheel to the right. She then accelerates. Slowing this down again and matching the exact time of these two angles, this angle appears to show the vehicle moving close to the agent. But in this angle, he does not appear to be in the path of the vehicle when he fired.

[00:03:16] Speaker 1: Shame. Shame. Oh my f***ing God. What the f***?

[00:03:21] Speaker 2: Seconds later, Becca Good runs to her wife, followed by the agent who fired his weapon. He briefly looks into the driver's side of the car and then walks away. Shame.

[00:03:31] Speaker 3: Shame.

[00:03:34] Speaker 2: Now what we cannot see in Ross's cell phone video is if the SUV made contact with the agent because the camera angle jerks up to the sky. But DHS still says it supports the agency's initial position, releasing the statement saying, quote, the footage corroborates what DHS has stated all along that this individual was shot dead. He was shot dead. He was shot dead. He was shot dead. He was shot dead. He was fired. He was shot dead. He's akt fancy. Would Rosen syndrome start in the summer here in Berlin, northern Austria? There's a lot of people here now ninth grade. This is certainly not easy. Yes. We talk about extremeuse that a lot of people there中. Those stories. My boy who was the real thing.

[00:04:14] Speaker 1: It's such a humorous story about the ned person had just a story that just makes me think starting to admire these people and junior officials now. He's tellingοι- everyone's here with me. Joey, does that change anything? Obviously, this new video is a new perspective, but then just as Kyung has reconstructed frame by frame those crucial instances from all the perspectives we now have.

[00:04:34] Speaker 4: I think it's problematic for the officers with respect to justifying the force, and I'll explain why. The first thing is let's talk about the policy. I do have the Department of Justice policy, which talks about the preservation of life, but it also talks about the obligation to get out of the path of the vehicle, right? Not to stand and shoot. It talks about getting out of the path of the vehicle, and it also talks about de-escalation. Why is that significant? I don't see much de-escalation there. That's important. I hear word to the effect of F-A-N-B-I-T-C-H. That goes to me to state of mind. So if you're not- Of the officer. Of the officer. He's saying that. Right. I mean, so it's one thing to defend yourself. It's another thing to be angry and use animus with regard to employing force. The other thing that's troubling to me is that if you're not standing in front of the vehicle, but if it seems to be, not, I'm not saying it, it's what the video shows, you're off to the side of the vehicle, then how is it representing an imminent threat to death or physical injury? The other issue is you have to justify every projectile. If you're shooting a projectile and the car's not coming at you, what's the basis? And if you're shooting into the window when the vehicle's going away from you, that's further problematic as well. So it goes against the notion of immediate fear of death or serious injury. It goes against the notion of the proportionality of the force. And finally, Aaron, it goes against the issue of it. It goes against the notion of being reasonable. So as I see this, it's a problem to me for the officer, even though the White House says there's nothing to see here, there is plenty to see from my perspective.

[00:06:00] Speaker 1: So much to see. I mean, John, because also one thing you see her do, well, there's a couple things that would show. First of all, her wife, Renee's wife, moves to get in the car, which would indicate they're leaving, which they were told to do, right? She moves to get into the car at that moment, stop filming. Okay, number one. Number two, then you see her on his, on the officer, you know, turn her wheel sharply. And then you see the car go away from him. And then the acceleration. Now, I know every single instant is going to matter in terms of what really happened, but there's no mistaking what she's doing with the wheel.

[00:06:33] Speaker 5: Only if you're looking at it. And we don't know whether in his tunnel vision, he was focused on her or the front of that vehicle or its direction. But what we do know is the value of this video is it's another angle.

[00:06:46] Speaker 1: Yep.

[00:06:47] Speaker 5: We came to conclusions, which are now questioned when we looked at the first. Video, because we got a second video. This would be a third video, which is instructive in a different way. What do we get out of this? We get three things. One, we get that it's not a high tension situation. She's smiling and saying, I'm not mad. And her friend is taunting them, but saying, you know, here's our license plate. We're not wearing. Right.

[00:07:09] Speaker 1: We don't change our license plate. By the way, awareness of if you want to come and get us later, go ahead. You know, you have the license number.

[00:07:15] Speaker 5: So, I mean, tensions at that point are low. As he comes around the car, the officers are pulled up. Right. The pickup trucker is saying, out of the car, out of the car. They're grabbing one door handle, which is locked. She starts to accelerate. Her wife is on the other door handle, which is also locked. And if you look at that video, here it is. When we come around to the front of that car, this is a different video. Yeah. When we come around to the front of that car, which we'll do in a minute. Yeah. You see, if you're the agent, his point of view is the car is now moving forward. He unholsters his weapon. And you see the car moving towards him. Then you lose sight, because the phone goes down as the gun comes up. Yeah. But you hear an impact, what sounds like an impact, which leans towards the officer's account and DHS's assertion that the vehicle made contact with him. Right. And you hear a groan. And simultaneous with that, not separate, you hear these three shots. At the end of the day, the three things they're going to have to consider are, are they in policy with the agency? Probably not. Were they tactics? Tactics, good. It would have been easier to leave your weapon holster and get out of the way than to end up in this confrontation. But was it legal? Did he feel threatened in the moment he pulled the trigger?

[00:08:31] Speaker 1: Well, Gil, what do you see there?

[00:08:32] Speaker 6: Well, there's nothing that a city police officer would do in that situation that approximates what the ICE agent did. Meaning in terms of the level of force.

[00:08:40] Speaker 5: They've all been trained to get out of the way of a car.

[00:08:42] Speaker 6: Yeah, not only the level of force, but all of the other tactics. I mean, there is one reason that the president, the vice president, and the secretary, are so hyperbolic over this, because they want to get out from and away from this as fast as possible. This is their worst case scenario of a white woman, a mother, being shot by ICE agents, a U.S. citizen. And so that's their whole mission is to get away from it. And they say, well, you know, the American people can look at this video and make their own decisions. Unfortunately for the administration, the American people have already looked at this video and they have made a determination. This is their Kent State moment.

[00:09:25] Speaker 1: So, Joey, I mean, to what Gil is saying, when you look at it, and I understand what you're saying, John, the kind of second by second, millisecond, actually, milliseconds are going to matter. And in the millisecond, you know, did he feel scared? Suddenly something goes from this level to this level. OK, but I guess what you see when you look at this, and I don't know how you can't see it, Joey, is that it didn't have to end this way, right? He could have stepped away as angry. He may have been in that moment and she would have driven off because she had turned the wheel. They could have arrested her. They could do whatever they wanted to do later. They had the as as her wife said, you got our license number.

[00:10:01] Speaker 4: Yes. So, look, you never want to give condemnation to police or law enforcement. At the same time, you want to act reasonably. And I think people have a right to believe that if they're ICE agents or anyone else, the first objective is, as this notes, is the preservation of life. And when you see a situation where you have an officer, firing where they're off to the side of the car, it refutes and disputes a narrative that the car is coming at me. Now, let's just say that that was the case. Then you parse this was the first shot, right? Was that then potentially OK or justified? Right now, that'll be an open question. But what about the other shot shot when you're clearly on the side of the car into the driver's side? How is that justified? Where is the immediate of the threat there?