🔗 Share this article

The real-life crime genre has an innovative format, or perhaps even a completely fresh vocabulary and grammar: officer-worn camera recordings. Countenances of those harmed, observers and possible perpetrators loom up to the cameras, sometimes in the intense brightness of vehicle beams or torches as the officers approach, their faces and voices eloquent of caution or fear or indignation or suspiciously contrived innocence. And we frequently incidentally glimpse the faces of the law enforcement personnel, one waiting impassively while the other asks the questions with what occasionally seems like extraordinary diffidence – though perhaps this is because they know they are being recorded.

An Emerging Pattern in Documentary Filmmaking

We have previously seen the streaming service real-life crime film American Murder: Gabby Petito, about the killing of an Instagram influencer by her boyfriend, whose primary focus was officer recordings and in which, as in this film, the police seemed extraordinarily lax with the perpetrator. There is also the acclaimed short film Incident by Bill Morrison, composed entirely of officer footage. Now comes Geeta Gandbhir’s documentary about the grim case of Ajike Owens in Ocala, Florida, a woman of colour whose four young kids reportedly bothered and tormented her white neighbour, Susan Lorincz. In 2023, after an escalating series of neighborhood conflicts in which the authorities were summoned multiple times, Lorincz fatally shot Owens through her locked door, when the victim went to Lorincz’s house to confront her about throwing objects at her children.

The Investigation and State Laws

The arresting officers found proof that the suspect had done online research into Florida’s “stand your ground” laws, which allow householders and others to use firearms if there is a reasonable belief of threat. The movie builds its story with the body cam footage captured during the repeated police visits to the scene before the killing, and then at the horrific and chaotic incident site itself – introduced by emergency call recordings of the caller contacting authorities in a dramatically trembling voice. There is also police cell footage of the individual which has a chilly, queasy fascination.

Depiction of the Suspect

The film does not really imply anything too complicated about Lorincz, or any mitigating factors. She is obviously disturbed, although the kids are heard calling her “the Karen”, an ugly jibe. The film is presented as an illustration of how “stand your ground” laws generate senseless and tragic violence. But the reality of gun ownership and the constitutional right (that historic American constitutional privilege that a deceased pundit famously claimed made firearm fatalities a price worth paying) is not much emphasized.

Officer Questioning and Firearm Norms

It is possible to watch the police interrogation scenes here and feel surprised at how minimal concern the police took in this aspect. When did she buy her gun? Did she receive any instruction on handling it? Was this the first time she discharged the weapon? Where did she store it in the house? Could it have been easily accessible and prepared? The police aren’t shown asking any of these undoubtedly important questions (though they could have inquired in footage that didn’t make the edit). Or is possessing a firearm so normal it would be like asking about microwaves or bread heaters?

Arrest and Aftermath

For what appeared to her local residents a very long time, Lorincz was not even arrested and charged, only held and even provided accommodation away from home for the night (another point of comparison, incidentally, with the a prior incident). And when she was finally officially taken into custody in the detention area, there is an remarkable scene in which the individual simply declines to rise, will not extend her arms for the cuffs, not aggressively, but with the courteously pathetic demeanor of someone whose mental health means that she just can’t do it. Had the kid-gloves treatment up until that point encouraged her to think that this might actually work?

Final Outcome and Judgment

It didn’t; and the jury’s verdict is saved for the closing credits. A very sombre picture of U.S. justice and consequences.