🔗 Share this article

The true crime category has an innovative format, or perhaps even a whole new language and grammar: officer-worn camera recordings. Countenances of those harmed, observers and possible perpetrators appear suddenly to the cameras, at times in the harsh glare of headlights or torches as the officers approach, their expressions and tones expressing wariness 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 remarkable hesitation – though perhaps this is because they know they are being recorded.

A Growing Trend in Documentary Filmmaking

We have already had the streaming service true-crime documentary American Murder: Gabby Petito, about the slaying of an social media personality by her boyfriend, whose primary focus was body cam footage and in which, as in this film, the police seemed surprisingly lenient with the suspect. There is also Bill Morrison’s Oscar-nominated short Incident, made exclusively of officer footage. Now comes Geeta Gandbhir’s documentary about the grim case of Ajike Owens in a city in Florida, a African American woman whose children allegedly harassed and tormented her white neighbour, Susan Lorincz. In 2023, after an increasing number of neighbour-dispute incidents in which the police were repeatedly called, Lorincz shot Owens dead through her closed front door, when the victim went to Lorincz’s house to confront her about throwing objects at her children.

The Police Inquiry and Legal Context

The investigating authorities found proof that the suspect had done internet searches into the state's self-defense statutes, which permit householders and others to shoot if there is a reasonable belief of threat. The movie constructs its narrative with the body cam footage captured during the repeated police visits to the scene before the killing, and then at the disturbing and disordered incident site itself – introduced by 911 audio material of the caller calling the police in a dramatically trembling voice. There is also police cell footage of the individual which has a disturbing, unsettling appeal.

Portrayal of the Accused

The film does not really suggest anything too complex about Lorincz, or any mitigating factors. She is clearly unstable, although the children are heard calling her “the Karen”, an hurtful taunt. The film is presented as an illustration of how self-defense regulations generate unnecessary and heartbreaking bloodshed. But the reality of gun ownership and the constitutional right (that longstanding U.S. legal right that a late commentator notoriously said made gun deaths a price worth paying) is not much highlighted.

Officer Questioning and Gun Culture

It is feasible to watch the officer questioning segments here and feel surprised at how little interest the officers took in this aspect. At what time did she purchase the firearm? Where (if anywhere) did she train in its use? Had she ever had occasion to fire it before? 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 surely relevant questions (though they could have inquired in footage that were not included). Or is gun ownership so commonplace it would be like asking about microwaves or bread heaters?

Detention and Consequences

For what seemed to her local residents a very long time, the suspect was not even taken into custody and indicted, only held and even offered a hotel stay away from home for the night (another point of comparison, incidentally, with the Gabby Petito case). And when she was ultimately officially taken into custody in the holding cell, there is an extraordinary sequence in which Lorincz simply refuses to stand, will not extend her arms for the cuffs, not aggressively, but with the politely self-pitying air of someone whose psychological state means that she just can’t do it. Had the kid-gloves treatment up until that point encouraged her to think that this could be effective?

Conclusion and Verdict

It didn’t; and the panel's decision is saved for the closing credits. A deeply sobering picture of U.S. justice and consequences.