Vance’s first instinct after Renee Nicole Good was killed wasn’t “let’s get the facts.”

It was “absolute immunity.”

That’s not a legal conclusion. It’s a narrative weapon.

Because “absolute immunity” does one thing in the public mind: it tries to turn evidence into an afterthought. It’s an early verdict delivered from a podium.

But the overhead reconstruction does what the talking points can’t: it turns this into geometry.

The part the overhead makes hard to spinThe part the overhead makes hard to spin

In the overhead reconstruction circulating from Bellingcat, the shooter is not depicted as a man trapped like a deer in headlights with nowhere to go.

• Early, the shooter is shown adjacent to the SUV, close to the side/near-side of the vehicle.
• As the SUV moves, the shooter is depicted shifting into open roadway, clear of the vehicle’s forward path.
• The other agents are offset, not frozen in the SUV’s lane, converging later rather than already pinned in front.
• Multiple federal vehicles are staged nearby, shaping the space and exits. This is not a clean “one officer vs. one car” scene.

That matters because DHS’s story is not just “she was dangerous.” It’s a specific mechanics claim: imminent ramming / attempted running over.

The overhead doesn’t “prove innocence” or “prove guilt.” It does something more devastating to the press-conference version:

It makes certainty look dishonest.

If the shooter is clear of the path, then the question isn’t “did he panic.”

It’s why he fired anyway, and whether lethal force continued after the immediate vehicle-threat geometry had collapsed.

And then there’s the other detail that fits the same pattern: the phone. If the agent is holding a phone through key moments, and the camera app appears visible shortly after, that’s not “chaos erased my judgment.” That’s an operational posture, and it creates a simple evidentiary demand:

Preserve and disclose whatever that device captured.

Why “absolute immunity” is the tellWhy “absolute immunity” is the tell

Here’s the move:

1. Declare the victim the villain (“left-wing ideology,” “domestic terrorism”).
2. Declare the agent untouchable (“absolute immunity”).
3. Centralize the evidence and treat scrutiny as illegitimate.

That’s how you launder a contested use-of-force incident into a closed story before the public ever sees the full record.

And once you’ve told the country “immunity,” you’ve trained them to stop asking the only questions that matter:

• Where exactly was everyone standing?
• Who was in the path, actually?
• Did the shooter have a clear step-away lane?
• At what moment did the “ramming” claim stop matching the physical layout?
• What video exists that the public hasn’t seen?

The pointThe point

If this shooting was justified, you don’t need immunity rhetoric on Day 1.

You need transparency.

“Absolute immunity” isn’t a shield for justice. It’s a shield for a story.

And when the state says, “Trust us,” while also fighting over who gets the evidence… that’s not law and order.

That’s narrative control.

Question: If the administration is so confident, why are they selling immunity instead of selling the complete record?