🔗 Share this article

The true crime genre has a new medium, or perhaps even a completely fresh vocabulary and structure: police body cam footage. Countenances of those harmed, observers and potential offenders loom up to the cameras, sometimes in the harsh glare of headlights or torches as the police arrive, their faces and voices expressing wariness or fear or anger or dubiously feigned naivety. And we often incidentally glimpse the expressions of the law enforcement personnel, one standing by blankly while the other asks the questions with what occasionally seems like remarkable hesitation – though maybe this is because they know they are being recorded.

An Emerging Pattern in Documentary Filmmaking

We have previously seen the Netflix real-life crime film American Murder: Gabby Petito, about the killing of an social media personality by her partner, whose main point of interest was body cam footage and in which, as in this film, the law enforcement seemed surprisingly lenient with the suspect. There is also the acclaimed short film Incident by Bill Morrison, composed entirely of body cam film. Now comes a new film by Geeta Gandbhir about the grim case of Ajike Owens in a city in Florida, a African American woman whose children reportedly bothered and antagonized her neighbor, a local resident. In 2023, after an escalating series of neighborhood conflicts in which the authorities were repeatedly called, Lorincz shot Owens dead through her closed front door, when Owens went to the neighbor's residence to address her about hurling items at her children.

The Investigation and Legal Context

The arresting officers found evidence 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 significant presumption of threat. The documentary builds its story with the officer recordings generated during the multiple officer calls to the location before the killing, and then at the horrific and chaotic crime scene itself – prefaced by 911 audio material of the caller calling the police in a melodramatically shaky voice. There is also police cell footage of the individual which has a chilly, queasy fascination.

Portrayal of the Accused

The film does not really suggest anything too complicated about Lorincz, or any mitigating factors. She is clearly unstable, although the children are heard calling her “the Karen”, an ugly jibe. The production is presented as an example of how “stand your ground” laws generate unnecessary and heartbreaking violence. But the reality of firearm possession and the constitutional right (that longstanding U.S. legal right that a late commentator notoriously said made gun deaths a necessary cost) is not much emphasized.

Police Interrogation and Gun Culture

It is possible to watch the officer questioning segments here and feel surprised at how minimal concern the officers took in this point. At what time did she purchase the firearm? 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 were not included). Or is gun ownership so commonplace it would be like asking about microwaves or toasters?

Arrest and Aftermath

For what appeared to her local residents a very long time, the suspect was not even taken into custody and indicted, only detained and even offered a hotel stay away from home for the night (another point of comparison, incidentally, with the a prior incident). And when she was finally formally arrested in the holding cell, there is an remarkable scene in which Lorincz simply declines to rise, refuses to put her wrists out for the handcuffs, not hostilely, but with the politely self-pitying air of someone whose psychological state means that she is unable to comply. Did the gentle handling up until that point encouraged her to think that this might actually work?

Final Outcome and Judgment

It was not successful; and the jury’s verdict is saved for the end titles. A deeply sobering picture of U.S. justice and consequences.