In my previous analysis of the checkpoint execution of Renee Nicole Good, I noted that frame-by-frame video analysis showed that the ICE officer Jonathan Ross premeditated shooting, and that the vehicle was fleeing at the moment he opened fire.

Now we have Ross’s own video footage.

It’s worse than I described.

First he circled and filmed her. Then he shot to kill her when she tried to leave. Then he called her a bitch. That’s not the sequence of a man in fear. That’s the sequence of an execution.

Why Was He Filming?

Ross approached Good’s vehicle and walked around it while holding up his camera to record. Think about what that means.

Every law enforcement expert knows a person who genuinely fears a vehicle is about to run them over does not hold up their camera in a hand to document the moment. They react. They move. They need their hands ready. They don’t calmly walk toward the vehicle to compose the best angle for a head shot.

Ross held up his camera because he felt safe enough to be the one filming. He was in fact acting as an authority curating a situation he wanted documented. That’s not defense, since shooting video and bullets from a safe distance both exhibit a position of authority and power. Both were exhibits of control, neither from fear. It’s premeditated killing with a media strategy.

His Own Video Shows Him Walking Into Position

The footage captures Ross moving across the front of Good’s vehicle. He wasn’t stationed there. He wasn’t caught in a sudden threat. He walked into position while filming.

His own evidence proves he put himself in front of the car. Voluntarily, slow and casual. With a camera in his hand.

The video demonstrates that the officers didn’t perceive Good to be a threat, said John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who has written extensively about officers shooting at moving vehicles. “If you are an officer who views this woman as a threat, you don’t have one hand on a cellphone. You don’t walk around this supposed weapon, casually filming,” Gross said.

The Wheel Turns Hard Right

Through the windshield of his own footage, you clearly can see Good behind the wheel.

As Ross approaches, she very visibly turns the steering wheel, hard to the right. It has the unmistakable look of someone who wants to AVOID Ross. It’s not subtle, it’s obvious and he’s aiming, focused on it.

She was trying to escape around him, and he saw that. He unholstered his weapon in the moment that he thought she would leave him. The camera angle then shifts, making noises from his own movements to shoot, as he takes aim and fires his weapon.

This is not ambiguous. This is not a matter of interpretation. His own recording shows a woman steering away from him, and he executed her.

Look at the expression in these frames. That is terror, a reaction to being terrorized by officers pounding on her door and yelling at her. That is a woman trapped by armed men screaming, as she tries to find a way out that doesn’t involve harming anyone.

She found that way out. She turned hard right when she saw she had a safe path. Ross unholstered, pivoted to her left side to take a precision deadly firing position, and pointed at her head to kill her. All shots were in aggression.

The Sequence His Own Camera Recorded

1. Ross approaches vehicle while filming—calm enough to hold a camera steady
2. Ross walks across the front of the vehicle—voluntarily positioning himself
3. Good turns steering wheel hard right—attempting to flee away from him
4. Ross pivots to her left side, at a clear distance and in no danger, and fires into the vehicle that is moving AWAY from him

Every element of self-defense doctrine requires an imminent threat you did not create and cannot escape.

Ross fails at all of it. He created the geometry himself, filmed himself doing it, and shot a woman whose own evasive action is visible in his footage. The only self-defense act in Ross’ video is by his victim trying to get away from his aggression.

Evidence Against Interest

In legal terms, a statement or evidence “against interest” is considered highly credible because people don’t usually create evidence that harms their own case.

Ross apparently believed this footage helped him. He filmed it. Presumably he or DHS released it thinking that filming an execution of an innocent woman supported their fault narrative.

Instead, it proves:

• He had time to film (no sudden emergency)
• He walked into position (created the confrontation)
• She turned away (flight, not attack)
• He shot as she left (not defense)

His own footage is a confession.

What He Said After He Shot Her

Audio from the scene captures what sounds like Ross saying “Fucking bitch” toward Good after he shot her.

This registers as the opposite to being in fear. Again, like with his camera and the gun use, it indicates the mindset of trying to compel control or dominance over the situation.

People don’t curse their attacker like this in contempt when they are defending. That’s the language of assault. We don’t hear a cry for help, a gasp, or even a fearful shake. Ross didn’t check himself for injuries, he took an aggression stance, fired from a stable position clear away, and then moved towards his target. These words, if indeed confirmed from Ross, are the words of someone asserting dominance over a victim, not someone processing a threat or dangerous experience.

Vance’s Lie Is Now Provable

Vice President Vance said Good decided to “throw her car in front of ICE officers.” He aggressively attacked the victim of the execution, pathologizing her to destroy her reputation, slandering her as “a little brainwashed.”

Ross’s own video shows ICE officers threw themselves at her, and shows her turning the wheel away from them to leave and avoid them. Ross shot an innocent woman in the head at close range because why? Who in this tragedy is actually brainwashed?

The Vice President of the United States is lying about a woman his shock troops killed using evidence that proves the opposite of what he claims. The shooter’s own footage shows her fleeing.

What This Means

The administration’s narrative still requires that Good drove at Ross. Yet their own evidence shows she drove away from him.

This is not a disputed reconstruction. This is not a forensic inference. This is the shooter’s own camera showing the victim steering away from him and his calculated decision to step into a firing position to kill her.

Renee Nicole Good died trying to escape. Jonathan Ross filmed himself murdering her. And the Vice President of the United States is trying to pathologize the victim for not letting armed men drag her out of her car and shoot her in the head on the street instead.

The video doesn’t lie. JD Vance does.

Of Course This is The Ninth Shooting

The execution of Good marks the ninth time ICE agents have opened fire on people since September 2025. Four are dead.

The Chicago cases showed the pattern.

In September, ICE killed Silverio Villegas González in Franklin Park. DHS claimed the agent was “seriously injured” after being dragged by the vehicle. Body camera footage showed the agent calling his injuries “nothing major.”

In October, Border Patrol agent Charles Exum shot Marimar Martinez five times in Brighton Park. Body cam footage showed Exum saying “Do something, bitch” before shooting. He later texted colleagues: “I fired 5 rounds, and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.” When deployed to another city, he wrote: “Cool. I’m up for another round of ‘fuck around and find out.'”

Exum faced no discipline. The charges against Martinez were dropped. Her attorney, watching the Minneapolis video, said: “Of course this happened. It is going to continue to happen.”

Panama December 1989

Self-defense doctrine holds you cannot provoke a threat and then claim defense. By that standard, a leader who deploys violent shock troops, defends their killings with lies, and pathologizes victims is not acting in defense of the American people. He is the threat. In 1989, according to President Bush, a checkpoint killing of an American was sufficient grounds for state invasion and regime change.

The CHP found an unresponsive man in a Tesla stopped in a highway lane. When be was finally awakened by the sound of his window being smashed, then he couldn’t be stopped.

The CHP first came across the Cybertruck about 12:45 a.m., when the vehicle was stopped in the number 3 lane on southbound U.S. Highway 101 near the exit to Marin City/Sausalito.

Officers found a man behind the wheel unresponsive and attempted to contact him, but when they tried to break the vehicle’s window he became alert and drove away.

A chase ensued and reached speeds up to 100 mph as the fleeing driver allegedly ran stop signs and red lights, crossing the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge into the East Bay, the CHP said.

The men who promise future “universal high income” from AI abundance won’t tolerate a one-time 5% levy to fund healthcare now.

The gap between rhetoric and revealed preference is the whole game. They’ll promise trickle down paradise tomorrow as long as they can hoard today, and tomorrow never comes.

It’s called fraud.

The “socialist” vocabulary they float serves a specific propaganda function: it preemptively neutralizes redistribution demands by positioning billionaires as already on board with sharing. No need to organize, regulate, or expropriate because you should just trust them to pay their share.

Then they don’t, and what are you or anyone else going to do about it?

As noted in an astute article by Noreena Hertz, the promises arrive after the accumulation phase, from people whose entire careers have been defined by aggressive tax avoidance, regulatory capture, and labor suppression. Their pledge of “universal high income” has exactly the credibility of a Victorian mill owner promising the welfare state, which is to say, absolutely none.

It’s called fraud.

They’re proposing that governments “socialize only the returns” – which means the public bears the risks (job displacement, social disruption, infrastructure costs) while private actors capture the productive capacity itself. That’s not a departure from trickle-down; it’s its perfected form.

Look at what they’re not proposing:

• Not worker ownership of AI systems
• Not public ownership of foundational models
• Not democratic control over deployment decisions
• Not binding redistribution mechanisms with enforcement

This is trickle-down economics rebranded into “socialist” vocabulary with no actual positive outcome. The structural logic is identical: concentrate ownership now, promise benefits will flow to others later, with no binding mechanism to enforce it. The only difference is rhetorical packaging – instead of “let us keep our wealth and jobs will materialize through market magic,” it’s “let us keep ownership of everything and checks will materialize through our future generosity.”

It’s called fraud.

Larry Page is protesting a one-time 5% tax on his hundreds of billions of accumulated wealth to protect his island-purchasing power. He’s relocating his wife’s marine conservation charity out of state to ensure not one dollar of his wealth contributes to California healthcare, even indirectly, even from the philanthropic arm that’s supposed to demonstrate he has a social conscience.

Meanwhile, Jensen Huang said he’s “perfectly fine” with staying and paying the tax, because why wouldn’t he? The flight is a choice, not an economic necessity, and it isolates the ones leaving as making an active ideological statement about who deserves what.

And remember who started this conversation: Elon Musk, promising “universal high income” along with flights to Mars by 2018, and driverless cars by 2017, while having already relocated Tesla’s headquarters to Texas in 2021 – after taking billions in California taxpayer subsidies.

It’s called fraud.

The man promising future abundance has already demonstrated he doesn’t deliver on predictions and won’t pay present obligations.

As Hertz puts it:

In their envisioned future, the “springs of cooperative wealth” will flow so abundantly that people will receive “according to their needs,” not according to the hours they clock in a factory. If that last sentence sounds familiar, that’s because it comes from Karl Marx.

Billionaires quoting Marx while acting like Rockefeller.

If you think charity spend by billionaires today is controversial, just look back at the early 1900s during industrialization.

It’s called fraud.