🔗 Share this article

The true crime genre has an innovative format, or perhaps even a whole new language and structure: police body cam footage. Faces of victims, witnesses and possible perpetrators loom up to the cameras, at times in the harsh glare of vehicle beams or torches as the police arrive, their expressions and tones eloquent of wariness or panic or anger or suspiciously contrived innocence. And we often catch sight of 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 perhaps this is because they are aware they are being recorded.

An Emerging Pattern in Documentary Filmmaking

We have previously seen the Netflix true-crime documentary The Gabby Petito Case, about the slaying 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 police seemed surprisingly lenient with the perpetrator. 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 a Florida mother in a city in Florida, a African American woman whose four young kids allegedly harassed and antagonized her neighbor, Susan Lorincz. In 2023, after an increasing number of neighbour-dispute incidents in which the authorities were summoned multiple times, the accused fatally shot Owens through her closed front door, when the victim went to the neighbor's residence to address her about hurling items at her children.

The Investigation and Legal Context

The arresting officers found proof that the suspect had done internet searches into the state's self-defense statutes, which allow householders and others to shoot if there is a significant presumption of danger. The movie constructs its narrative with the officer recordings captured 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 Lorincz calling the police in a dramatically trembling voice. There is also jail video of the individual which has a chilly, queasy fascination.

Portrayal of the Accused

The documentary does not really suggest anything too complex about Lorincz, or any extenuating circumstance. She is clearly unstable, although the children are heard calling her a derogatory term, an ugly jibe. The film is showcased as an example of how “stand your ground” laws generate unnecessary and heartbreaking bloodshed. But the reality of gun ownership and the second amendment (that historic American constitutional privilege that a late commentator notoriously said made gun deaths a necessary cost) is not much highlighted.

Police Interrogation and Firearm Norms

It is feasible to watch the police interrogation scenes here and feel astonished at how minimal concern the police took in this aspect. When did she buy her gun? Where (if anywhere) did she train in its use? Had she ever had occasion to fire it before? How was the gun kept in her home? Was it just on the couch, loaded and ready? The police aren’t shown asking any of these surely relevant questions (though they could have inquired 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 seemed to her neighbors a very long time, the suspect was not even taken into custody and indicted, only detained 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, refuses to put her wrists out for the handcuffs, not hostilely, but with the politely self-pitying air of someone whose mental health means that she just can’t do it. Had the kid-gloves treatment up until that point led her to think that this could be effective?

Conclusion and Verdict

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