🔗 Share this article

The true crime genre has a new medium, or perhaps even a completely fresh vocabulary and structure: police body cam footage. Faces of victims, observers and potential offenders loom up to the cameras, at times in the intense brightness of vehicle beams or torches as the police arrive, their expressions and tones expressing caution or panic or indignation or dubiously feigned naivety. And we often catch sight of the faces of the officers themselves, one waiting impassively while the other conducts the inquiry with what sometimes seems like remarkable hesitation – though perhaps this is because they are aware they are being recorded.

A Growing Trend in Non-Fiction Cinema

We have already had the Netflix 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 police seemed surprisingly lenient with the perpetrator. There is also the acclaimed short film Incident by Bill Morrison, made exclusively of officer footage. Now comes Geeta Gandbhir’s documentary about the grim case of Ajike Owens in a city in Florida, a woman of colour whose four young kids reportedly bothered and tormented her neighbor, a local resident. In 2023, after an increasing number of neighborhood conflicts in which the police were summoned multiple times, the accused shot Owens dead through her locked door, when the victim went to Lorincz’s house to address her about hurling items at her children.

The Investigation and State Laws

The arresting officers found evidence that Lorincz had done internet searches into the state's self-defense statutes, which permit householders and others to use firearms if there is a reasonable belief of threat. The movie builds its story with the officer recordings 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 the caller contacting authorities in a dramatically trembling voice. There is also jail video of the individual which has a disturbing, unsettling appeal.

Portrayal of the Accused

The film does not really suggest anything too complicated about the neighbor, or any extenuating circumstance. She is clearly unstable, although the kids are heard calling her a derogatory term, an ugly jibe. The production is showcased as an example of how “stand your ground” laws generate unnecessary and heartbreaking violence. But the fact of gun ownership and the second amendment (that longstanding U.S. legal right that a late commentator notoriously said made firearm fatalities a price worth paying) is not much emphasized.

Police Interrogation and Firearm Norms

It is feasible to watch the officer questioning segments here and feel surprised at how little interest the police took in this aspect. At what time did she purchase the firearm? Where (if anywhere) did she train in its use? Was this the first time she discharged the weapon? How was the gun kept in her home? Could it have been easily accessible and prepared? The police aren’t shown asking any of these surely relevant questions (though they may have done in footage that didn’t make the edit). Or is gun ownership so normal it would be like asking about microwaves or toasters?

Detention and Consequences

For what appeared to her local residents a very long time, the suspect was not even arrested and charged, only detained and even provided accommodation away from home for the night (another parallel, by the way, with the Gabby Petito case). And when she was ultimately officially taken into custody in the detention area, there is an extraordinary sequence in which Lorincz simply refuses to stand, refuses to put her wrists out for the handcuffs, not aggressively, but with the politely self-pitying air 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?

Final Outcome and Judgment

It didn’t; and the panel's decision is revealed in the closing credits. A deeply sobering portrayal of U.S. justice and consequences.