With her especially picked murderer

Clearly the guy is an criminal idiot

The answer you are looking for? He's stupid AF

he probably thought he was being clever to film himself so that he'd have evidence in court.

He moved near the front of her vehicle with his phone camera as an instinctive pretext to shoot her? It's the same bullshit move with these sadistic bastards as "Stop resisting!" yelled at a subdued person with knees on their neck as cover for more beatings. It seems pretty clear to me that these fascist thugs are just itching for excuses to shoot people, and they know now that they can hurt, maim and even kill people with impunity thanks to the felon rapist. This can only escalate. I predict that we are dangerously close to them firing into a crowd of bystanders, and then what?

I hope that state officials file charges soon in order to head off the idea that ICE agents can act with impunity. If prosecuted, I think he will have a hard time in court arguing that he had full control of himself during the incident, considering that he was distracted by the phone in his hand.

[Gemini prompted research]

In modern law enforcement, standards from the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police), CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies), and IACLEA (International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators) prioritize officer safety, tactical proficiency, and the use of objective technology for documentation.

None of these organizations recommend or provide "clear guidance" that an officer should use a handheld mobile device to record an active engagement. In fact, doing so would likely be viewed as a violation of fundamental tactical and safety standards.

1. Professional Standards & Expectations

CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies)
CALEA standards (specifically Standard 41.3.8 regarding Body-Worn Cameras) emphasize that recording should be handled by automated or hands-free systems.

* Tactical Focus: The commentary on CALEA standards suggests that Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) are preferred because they allow for "early activation" so an officer does not have to "think about turning the BWC on under stressful conditions or during an escalating event when an officer's focus is on safety and tactics" (CALEA 41.3.8).
* Prohibition of Personal Devices: Many agency policies aligned with CALEA expressly prohibit the use of personal devices for evidence collection unless "out of necessity" and strictly define that "personnel will not make copies of any video... for personal use" (CALEA Standards - PowerDMS, 2025).
IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police)
The IACP Model Policy on Investigation of Officer-Involved Shootings (2019) focuses on the preservation of evidence and the "elimination of threats."
* Prioritization: Under Section V, the policy dictates that officers must "take initial steps to ensure that any threat from the subject has been eliminated" and "protect the safety of themselves and others" before addressing evidence.
* Evidence Collection: IACP guidelines suggest that "determinations be made whether video recordings were made by in-car cameras; body-worn cameras... and that they have been secured as evidence." It does not envision an officer as the primary videographer during the discharge of a firearm.
IACLEA (International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators)
IACLEA's Accreditation Standards (Standard 4.1.2) regarding the use of deadly force mirror the "Objective Reasonableness" standard from Graham v. Connor.
* Expectation of Readiness: IACLEA standards (specifically Chapter 43) require officers to be proficient in weapons handling. Using a hand to hold a phone while engaging a suspect would likely be cited as a failure to maintain "operational readiness" (IACLEA Standard 1.2.3).

2. Impact on Trial & Legal Defense

If an officer shoots a citizen while holding a gun in one hand and a cell phone in the other, it creates significant legal vulnerabilities:

The "Objective Reasonableness" Standard
Under Graham v. Connor, an officer's actions are judged based on what a "reasonable officer" would do in the same situation.

* The Prosecution’s Argument: The prosecution would argue that if the officer had time and manual dexterity to film, the threat was not "immediate" or "deadly." The act of filming contradicts the claim that the officer was in fear for their life, as they chose to prioritize "content" or "documentation" over tactical safety (e.g., a two-handed grip for accuracy).

* Expert Testimony: Policing experts, such as Geoffrey P. Alpert, have characterized officers placing themselves in tactical disadvantage to film as "absurd" and a "dangerous decision" (AP News, Jan 2026).

Negligence and Recklessness

* Marksmanship: Handguns are designed to be fired with a two-handed "isosceles" or "Weaver" stance for maximum control. Firing one-handed while distracted by a screen increases the risk of "stray" rounds, which could lead to charges of Culpable Negligence or Reckless Endangerment.
* Failure of Duty: Defense attorneys would struggle to justify why an officer bypassed department-issued Body-Worn Cameras (which are hands-free) in favor of a handheld device, suggesting a "premeditated" or "performative" motive rather than a professional response to a threat.

The "Split-Second" Doctrine

Courts usually give deference to officers making split-second decisions. However, the manual act of retrieving, unlocking, and aiming a phone camera requires deliberative thought, which undermines the "split-second" defense. It suggests the officer had time to assess and chose to film instead of seeking cover or de-escalating.

> Conclusion: Utilizing a mobile device to film during a shooting incident is tactically unsound and legally damaging. It serves as powerful evidence for a prosecutor to argue that the officer was not facing an "immediate" threat and was acting outside the scope of "objectively reasonable" police conduct.

Deliberately walking in front of a car, while filming it continuing to film as he draws his gun to fire . . . if you're in fear for your life you drop the phone and focus on making the situation safe.

But I so much wish you were wrong.

are private military contractors and he was filming himself to protect himself in court as crazy as that sounds.

There is no way that he can argue that he was able to make a reasonable split-second decision that his life was in danger while he was waving his phone in front of his face.

We ticket people who use their cellphones while driving for a reason -- it's dangerous, because people can't concentrate properly on the road if they're looking at a phone. This guy was doing the exact same thing -- he couldn't possibly have been concentrating on what he was doing while looking at his phone.

Sorry for the multiple responses but I'm examining this in real time like everybody else. I think they were told to film their interactions with the public so that they could have a viral moment of a "leftist agitator" and plaster it all over FoxNews. I think that is an avenue of inquiry that reporters should take. If Noem sent out a memo telling agents to film interactions with their phones.

If he had been paying attention to the scene rather than to his phone screen, the brief time interval of that backing up movement would have allowed him to jog to the side, out of danger of the car if it were to proceed forward. In fact, his instincts would have compelled him to make that jog. He is at fault. His negligence placed him at the left front corner of the car.

if you watch the reflections in the car, you can see he starts filming with the phone in his right hand, the switches to the left hand while passing by the passenger side for the second time, to unholster his gun. we can clearly see that she is not threatening him in any way to warrant him pulling out his gun.

The phone is clearly in his right hand when he is behind the car, at some point between the back and front of the car he switches it to his left hand.

Makes you wonder if he was intentionally putting himself into a position where he had an excuse to use his weapon, because he wanted to teach some "fucking b*tch" a lesson.

this timing is telling IMO. he wasn't going to take shit talking from a couple of lesbians.

Why did he draw his weapon in the first place? She was speaking nicely to him seconds before.

It is indicative of the fact that these guys do not wear body cams.

Maybe I would feel different if every step I took was monitored but it always felt like something an honest law enforcement officer would want.

to create a viral moment to broadcast on FoxNews. That's it. Look at all the idiot right wing influencers Nick Shirley, Nick Sortor and Benny Johnson that have been going on raids with Noem. Dan Bongino puffing his chest like John Wayne. This is all performance for the spectacle.

SHOCK CELL PHONE VIDEO: Renee Good's final words to her murderer: “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you.”

ICE agent Jonathan Ross after shooting and killing her seconds later: “Fuckin’ bitch.”

Via Alpha News

— MeidasTouch (@meidastouch.com) 2026-01-09T18:36:45.559Z

Appears he set out to murder her.

some of the folks committing these atrocities uploaded them to a torture porn site

These people are disgusting AND they're heavily armed.

The first shot might have been an accident due to him being preoccupied with his cell phone
The second two shots were deliberate.
Bottom line he had no reason to pull out his gun in the first place.

Evil bastard.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

If that is Kristi Noem’s standard of a professional well-trained officer, we are in more trouble than we thought. What kind of vermin kills a woman and immediately calls her a hateful name.

Maybe someone who watched the stream captured it, and later disseminated it.

JD Vance is already commenting on it, saying that it exonerates the officer. IMO it appears to incriminate him further.

That whole interaction doesn't look good; but he WAS in front at some point. NO, he shouldn't have been there; thats not proper procedure. But that also doesnt matter. I never hear him say anything which is odd.

I think they believe that their people, anyway, will be much more upset by Rebecca Good lipping off to poor officer Ross than by what ensued.

And they may be so far down their rabbit hole that they think it will be clear to everyone that the poor fella was pushed beyond the limits of any mortal and had not choice but to shoot.

We are, after all, dealing with very twisted people.

I have this gut feeling that the taco gestapo were hunting for a protester to kill. The goons could have driven around her car!! A car drove past her vehicle right before they started getting out of their vehicles. They blocked her in making it hard for her to drive away.

It happens almost simultaneously with the other jerk trying to get inside her car.

Or wanna-bee snuf film producer for dark web pay-per- view? Maybe he wants special attention from the sadist in the Oval Office?

At the very least, mentally ill and fatally stupid. Definitely should not be on federal payroll or allowed on the streets with ANY level of authority to do whatever they want.

Snuff films, just like Epstein taped the rape.

I cannot think of any job these Nazi goons could or should hold.

I noticed that yesterday but didn't think it was anything. We'll, I was in error. It is "something!"

Even more pertinent are Johnathan Ross's misogynistic comments during and after his murder of Ms. Good. Positively disgusting.

I stand corrected.

Wouldn’t be surprised if they knew who she was prior to the unfolding of the incident.

Thugs were taking pictures of her license plates as soon as they surrounded her car.

It only shows one shot after she's in the distance and you can't see him getting hit at all, just a thump and he walked to the car and back, no limp, no signs of distress so this is pure bullshit!!!! There were 3 shots, one at point blank range, not just the one.

Fucking liars!!

However, I think this does match up with the other videos -- Ross is on the front left corner of the car when it begins to move. From other videos you can see that he moves out of the way, to his right, as the car moves. You can't see the gunshots on this new video, and you can't hear them either, possibly because they were too loud for the phone's mic to pick up -- many smartphones will employ "audio ducking" to prevent distortion if the input is too high, although I'm just speculating that that's what happened in this case.

You can't see the shots because when the car starts moving, Ross steps to his right and immediately loses focus on the phone, which points in random directions while he is shooting with his other hand. There is a noise which sounds like he is hit by the car, but that is absolutely not proven by this video. Banging the phone's mic against his clothing would create a similar noise. There are other videos which clearly show him stepping aside and firing two shots into the side window of the car after firing one into the windshield.

You make good points, but I would really like to see a side-by-side comparison before I accept it as non-tampered with. It would just be too easy to do, and they have the incentive to try it.

I definitely do not see, regardless of tampering or lack of, how this makes him look any better or her look worse!

I guess from their perspective, a woman not meekly obeying, and instead being a "mouthy woman" AKA "fucking bitch" is reason enough to get shot in the face nowadays? Is that what they want me to think?

That is my only takeaway from this.

I'm still very suspicious.

and there is nothing to show that she was angry enough to try to run him over. That's just nuts. They think this exonerates him? It adds to her case, and makes him look even worse to me!

I would like to see a comparison time-wise between the newly released video from the murderer's cell phone with ones we already have seen that CLEARLY show he did NOT get hit by the car. In this new one, his arm apparently jerks up, then he shoots her and the car runs away.

That moment where his arm seems to jerk up is a great place for tampering with that video. In the other ones, I think there is MORE TIME between the last spot we see him filming aimed toward thd car and the shooting. Do we see him throw his arm up before he shoots in those earlier videos?

I hope someone with the equipment and expertise is looking at this. That is just too easy a place to edit that new video, and him tossing his arm up does NOT mean the car hit him! I want a comparison ASAP!

I think they could easily have edited out the part that shows, from his perspective as well, that he was not hit by the car. What I see is that his hand jerks up because he is shooting with his other hand, not because the car hit him.

And then he calls her a "fucking bitch"??? Nope. No exoneration. Shd did NOTHING to deserve what he did to her. That is even more clear here.

And I am even more sickened. That was cold-blooded MURDER.

if he did, that's because instead of paying attention to what he was doing, he was looking at his phone. Which is an extremely dangerous thing to be doing when you could be a split second from drawing your gun and firing it. It certainly seems clear that if his colleague hadn't tried to pull Renee Good out of the car, she wouldn't have pulled out like that.

AT BEST for Ross, it's this:

I just do not trust them in the least.

And I agree that his defense of negligent homicide is blown. But of course they don't think that. Evidently, they think he is a perfect angel. Why else would they release this?

I was already sickened by this, and am now even more devastated. Tears are falling as I type this. I just can't...

Yes, there is acceleration. But context matters! She's going from a full stop on an icy road obstructed by other vehicles. How in the world could she have accelerated beyond 3-5 mph while in control of the vehicle? It is sheer madness for anyone to see this and claim that officer was in any danger whatsoever. One step to the side without any particular urgency and he's out of harm's way. Ugh!

In my opinion after someone is shot in the head they are no longer responsible for whatever (probably involuntary) actions their body may make.

Her leg must have jeked down hard on the gas pedal when he shot her.

accelerate and decelerate as we move back and forth and turn the wheels to get into the spot.

That's the kind of acceleration she does.

I have seen way too many MAGA using the word and twisting it to presume she deliberately stepped on the gas and was flying at him at 45+ mph. It's grotesque spin.

Perhaps with her foot on the accelerator it pushed to the floor when she was shot...as a reflex reaction. My thought.

Might need to start carrying around a real digital camera to avoid id while filming.

But that does sound a little impractical. Goons could seize your camera if they see it.

We need jamming apps.

Or wear a camera like a GoPro. I wonder if you can livestream with one of those?

Carry a burner phone?

The Feds are gathering data and using it to id people in the vicinity. If you’re filming, you should be aware that your data is in some fashion being collected.

He said that a law enforcement agent trying to deal with using a gun and viewing an electronic device simultaneously would be jeopardizing his own life, and would be subject to disciplinary action.

No matter what else happened, waving a gun around in one hand and a phone in the other seems like incredibly dangerous behavior.

Otherwise, your second and third shots will careen wildly. This is Peace Officer training 101.
But for Noem's ICE, up loadable (after editing) video is of the utmost importance.

Of course, ICE refuses to wear body cameras like professional Law Enforcement.

His behavior violates all standards and procedures of policing. If he had any training - he ignored it.

And I read somewhere that this is guy has been a weapons instructor. Seriously?!

due to cell phone usage has been one of my worst pet peeves for a long time. Whether driving a vehicle, walking across an intersection, or pushing a shopping cart through a store, it can be dangerous to the user and to anyone around them. Of course operating a deadly weapon while distracted by a cell phone is totally irresponsible and should have long ago been banned. That's what body cameras are for. Where was his?

Later masturbation…probably been fantasizing about killing a woman for years. Wonder if he was live-streaming it to his troglodyte buddies.

When coupled with the fact that he was videoing, it looks very much like a provocation on his part. He wanted to be so closed that he could credibly say he felt threatened. The videoing belies that contention. It shows premeditation.

I'm no body language specialist, but I would say that the look Nicole Good's face (I'm having a hard time seeing her face knowing that in two seconds she is going to be dead) was not the least bit threatening. In fact, she looked very cheerful. She clearly did not look like she felt threatened in any way. A prosecutor will have a specialist and will stress these points.

I am convinced that he knew he was dealing with a same sex couple and that infuriated him.

in just a few seconds to elevate the severity of the crime.

This at least qualifies as domestic terrorizing while distracted. There is NO way having a phone in his other hand while drawing a weapon meets any standard for use of force. IACP, CALEA, and any other state agencies, let alone federal, can’t possibly add to an officer’s defense.

certainly doesn't help his case. I wonder if that was leaked by someone else in ICE that wants him charged.

It is just a possibility, and I do not necessarily believe it is true, but maybe the video had already gotten out, and Vance wanted to put a pre-emptive spin on it.

but once Good's wife teased him, he switched the phone hand to free up his shootin' hand.