🔗 Share this article

The real-life crime category has an innovative format, or perhaps even a completely fresh vocabulary and grammar: officer-worn camera recordings. Faces of victims, observers and possible perpetrators loom up to the cameras, sometimes in the harsh glare of headlights or torches as the police arrive, their expressions and tones expressing caution or fear or anger or dubiously feigned naivety. And we frequently catch sight of the faces of the law enforcement personnel, one standing by blankly while the other asks the questions with what sometimes 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 streaming service true-crime documentary American Murder: Gabby Petito, about the killing 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 extraordinarily lax with the suspect. There is also the acclaimed short film Incident by Bill Morrison, made exclusively of body cam film. 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, 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 closed front door, when Owens went to Lorincz’s house to address 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 Florida’s “stand your ground” laws, which permit residents and others to use firearms if there is a significant presumption of danger. The movie constructs its narrative with the body cam footage captured during the repeated police visits to the scene before the shooting, and then at the disturbing and disordered crime scene itself – prefaced by emergency call recordings of the caller contacting authorities 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 the neighbor, or any mitigating factors. She is obviously disturbed, although the kids are heard calling her a derogatory term, an ugly jibe. The production is showcased as an illustration of how “stand your ground” laws generate senseless and tragic bloodshed. But the fact of firearm possession and the constitutional right (that historic American constitutional privilege that a deceased pundit notoriously said made gun deaths a price worth paying) is not much highlighted.

Police Interrogation 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? 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 may have done 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 neighbors 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 parallel, incidentally, with the Gabby Petito case). And when she was finally officially taken into custody in the detention area, there is an extraordinary sequence in which the individual simply declines to rise, refuses to put her wrists out for the handcuffs, not aggressively, but with the courteously pathetic demeanor 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 might actually work?

Conclusion and Verdict

It didn’t; and the panel's decision is saved for the end titles. A very sombre portrayal of U.S. justice and consequences.