🔗 Share this article

The true crime genre has a new medium, or perhaps even a whole new language and grammar: police body cam footage. Faces of victims, witnesses and potential offenders appear suddenly to the cameras, at times in the intense brightness of headlights or flashlights as the police arrive, their faces and voices eloquent of wariness or fear or indignation or suspiciously contrived innocence. And we often catch sight of the expressions of the officers themselves, one standing by blankly while the other conducts the inquiry with what sometimes seems like extraordinary diffidence – though maybe this is because they are aware they are being recorded.

An Emerging Pattern in Documentary Filmmaking

We have already had the streaming service true-crime documentary American Murder: Gabby Petito, about the slaying of an Instagram influencer by her boyfriend, whose primary focus was officer recordings and in which, as in this film, the law enforcement seemed extraordinarily lax with the suspect. There is also the acclaimed short film Incident by Bill Morrison, made exclusively of body cam film. Now comes a new film by Geeta Gandbhir about the tragic incident of Ajike Owens in Ocala, Florida, a woman of colour whose four young kids allegedly harassed and tormented her neighbor, Susan Lorincz. In 2023, after an increasing number of neighborhood conflicts in which the police were repeatedly called, the accused fatally shot Owens through her locked door, when Owens went to Lorincz’s house to address her about hurling items at her children.

The Police Inquiry and State Laws

The investigating authorities found proof that the suspect had done online research into Florida’s “stand your ground” laws, which permit residents and others to shoot if there is a significant presumption of threat. The movie builds its story with the body cam footage generated during the repeated police visits to the location before the killing, and then at the disturbing and disordered crime scene itself – introduced by 911 audio material of Lorincz calling the police in a dramatically trembling voice. There is also police cell footage of Lorincz which has a disturbing, unsettling appeal.

Portrayal of the Accused

The film does not really suggest anything too complicated about Lorincz, or any extenuating circumstance. She is obviously disturbed, although the kids are heard calling her a derogatory term, an hurtful taunt. The film is presented as an example of how “stand your ground” laws generate senseless and tragic violence. But the fact of firearm possession and the constitutional right (that historic American constitutional privilege that a late commentator famously claimed made firearm fatalities a price worth paying) is not much emphasized.

Officer Questioning and Firearm Norms

It is feasible to watch the officer questioning segments here and feel astonished at how minimal concern the police took in this aspect. When did she buy her gun? Did she receive any instruction on handling it? Had she ever had occasion to fire it before? How was the gun kept in her home? Could it have been easily accessible and prepared? The authorities aren’t shown asking any of these surely relevant questions (though they could have inquired in recordings that were not included). Or is possessing a firearm so commonplace it would be like asking about kitchen appliances or toasters?

Detention and Consequences

For what seemed to her local residents a extended period, Lorincz was not even taken into custody and indicted, only detained and even provided accommodation away from home for the night (another parallel, by the way, with the a prior incident). And when she was finally officially taken into custody in the holding cell, there is an extraordinary sequence in which the individual simply refuses to stand, will not extend her arms for the handcuffs, not hostilely, but with the courteously pathetic demeanor of someone whose mental health means that she is unable to comply. Had the kid-gloves treatment up until that point led her to think that this might actually work?

Conclusion and Verdict

It was not successful; and the panel's decision is saved for the end titles. A deeply sobering picture of U.S. justice and consequences.