Just over a week ago the NY Times put out a video analyzing the shooting of Renee Good. I watched that video closely and it left a lot to be desired. Specifically, the narration of the video seemed to admit that it appeared ICE agent Jonathan Ross was "struck" by the SUV and then seconds later the video ignored that and claimed he was not "run over." Here's the text from their first video.
President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it’s true that at this moment, in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV.
But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV.
These are, as I said at the time, two different things. You can be hit by a car and not be run over. But just because you are not run over does not mean you were not hit or that you were not in danger. Here's what I wrote about what I could see in that first NY Times video:
What I see, is the agent lean toward the hood of the car, possibly placing his left hand on the hood and leaning on it with his arm out straight. The car surges forward and seems to lift him off the ground and move him a couple of feet backwards...No, the agent was not run over, but was he struck by the car? Did the car impart a force to his body that moved him backwards? I think the answer is yes and so does the NY Times, it seems.
Follow the link if you want to see that video for yourself.
Yesterday, the NY Times took a second bite at the apple with a new video that seems designed to replace the previous one. The new one includes parts of the video shot by Jonathan Ross himself. The new version still maintains that Ross was not run over, but instead of admitting it looks like he was struck, the narrator says it's impossible to tell if that happened. But if you actually watch the video being described, it's not impossible to tell.
Unfortunately, this clip hasn't been uploaded to YouTube yet, so you'll have to watch it on the NY Times site (or wait until they get around to sharing it). But here's what the new version claims starting at 3:46.
As the SUV rolls forward, the agent unholsters his firearm. We see in his cellphone video at this moment, the camera drifting off to the left. The agent is no longer focused on filming. It's at this point in the cellphone video where it first looks and sounds like the agent's getting knocked violently.
On the other camera we can see what's happening. Here is agent Ross aiming his gun at Ms. Good. And here is his outstretched arm leaning toward her vehicle, which is barely visible behind the Tahoe. His phone, which is gripped in his left hand, flips over when the agent's hand lands on front of the vehicle. There's an audible thud when it hits. The camera rotates up towards the sky. Again, while it appears the agent is getting knocked over we can see that's not the case from the other angle, which shows he's standing with his hand near the headlight, his torso and legs away from the vehicle.
In the cellphone footage the agent's face flashes on screen, then it goes black. The other angle shows us why. We can see the agent's foot sliding, his hand bracing against the SUV and his arm getting pressed into his chest. It is impossible to determine if this is happening because of the SUV's movement or the icy asphalt or more likely both. And what's very unclear because of the limited quality and availability of footage is whether the agent's upper body gets swiped by the vehicle as his left foot slides back.
This moment is when agent Ross fires.
In the original clip they admitted it looked like he was "struck" by the car. In the new version they have retracted that and claim it's "impossible to determine."
But I'd encourage you to watch the video yourself, especially the part starting at 4:54, because it's not impossible. For starter's it's noteworthy that in a video offering detailed frame by frame analysis they never refer to agent Ross's utterance as the car start's moving toward him. He yells "Oh!" or maybe "Whoa!" as if he's surprised and afraid of what is suddenly happening. This is clearly relevant since the whole case, legally speaking, may turn on whether or not he had a rational fear in the seconds before he fired a shot. It's odd the NY Times doesn't mention it. I can't think of any reason not to mention it except that it doesn't help the case they are trying to portray in this video.
Ross leans on the hood with his left hand and puts his feet out behind him, clearly anticipating that he's about to be hit by Good's car. He's trying to avoid going under the wheels. As he does this, his feet slide a bit on the street. That's a good catch by the Times which I hadn't noticed before. But all this does is result in him putting more of his weight on his left hand which is on the hood. He's nearly at a 45 degree angle to the street.
Then we get to the part where his video goes black as "his arm is getting pressed into his chest." The Times says they can't tell why that happens, but if you watch the video it's clear why. The car is surging forward. His hand is on the hood holding the cellphone, camera side up. His arm is being pressed into his chest by the car. You can see the camera (and his hand) traveling under his face and then into his body in Ross's cell phone video. His camera moves under him in the space of 4 frames, it's now pegged to his jacket along with his arm and, most importantly, the car's hood.
From the other angle it's just as clear. The car is surging toward him, pushing his outstretched arm into his body. And because he's on the front edge of the car and Good is still turning right, the force winds up shoving him up and to the left a bit, out of the way. His left foot seems to leave the ground for a second as the car pushes him upright. He's not run over. His legs never go under the car. But he is being struck by the car. It's imparting motion to his body. And I think his hands are also struck by the mirror as the car passes, though it's harder to tell.
Anyway, this video is more detailed than the first one but the claim that you can't tell if Ross was hit is nonsense. The first video was just sloppy and this one feels more like resistance journalism. They are working backwards from the preferred outcome instead of just watching (and listening) to what is happening. I'll update this post if they ever put the clip itself on You Tube.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member