think that's the bullet?
if location of the shooter and model of gun used are to be believed, the bullet would have been traveling perhaps 1000-1400 fps at that distance from the shooter.
if that is the blur caused by the bullet captured in a single frame, with an apparent length of about 15 inches, the camera would have had to be capable of capturing images at 800 to 1100 frames per second.
that would be easy enough to prove by examining the rest of the footage
i do not believe that a bullet would reflect enough light to even appear on the footage, bcs as frame rate increases, light sensitivity decreases