🔗 Share this article

The true crime genre has an innovative format, or perhaps even a completely fresh vocabulary and grammar: officer-worn camera recordings. Faces of victims, witnesses and possible perpetrators appear suddenly to the cameras, at times in the intense brightness of headlights or flashlights as the police arrive, their expressions and tones expressing caution or fear or anger or dubiously feigned naivety. And we often incidentally glimpse the expressions of the officers themselves, one waiting impassively while the other conducts the inquiry with what sometimes seems like extraordinary diffidence – though perhaps this is because they are aware they are being recorded.

A Growing Trend in Non-Fiction Cinema

We have previously seen the streaming service true-crime documentary The Gabby Petito Case, about the slaying of an social media personality by her partner, whose main point of interest was officer recordings 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 Geeta Gandbhir’s documentary about the grim case of a Florida mother in a city in Florida, a woman of colour whose four young kids reportedly bothered and antagonized her white neighbour, a local resident. In 2023, after an escalating series of neighbour-dispute incidents in which the police were repeatedly called, the accused fatally shot Owens through her locked door, when the victim went to Lorincz’s house to confront her about throwing objects at her children.

The Investigation and Legal Context

The investigating authorities found proof that Lorincz had done online research into Florida’s “stand your ground” laws, which allow householders and others to shoot if there is a reasonable belief of danger. The movie builds its story with the officer recordings generated during the repeated police visits to the location before the shooting, and then at the disturbing and disordered crime scene itself – introduced by 911 audio material of Lorincz contacting authorities in a melodramatically shaky 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 complicated about Lorincz, or any mitigating factors. She is obviously disturbed, although the children are heard calling her a derogatory term, an ugly jibe. The film is presented as an example of how “stand your ground” laws lead to senseless and tragic bloodshed. But the reality of firearm possession and the second amendment (that historic American constitutional privilege that a late commentator notoriously said made firearm fatalities a price worth paying) is not much highlighted.

Officer Questioning and Gun Culture

It is possible to watch the officer questioning segments here and feel surprised at how little interest the police took in this point. 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? How was the gun kept in her home? Could it have been easily accessible and prepared? The authorities 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 kitchen appliances or toasters?

Detention and Consequences

For what appeared to her neighbors a extended period, the suspect was not even taken into custody and indicted, only held and even provided accommodation away from home for the night (another point of comparison, incidentally, with the Gabby Petito case). And when she was finally formally arrested in the detention area, there is an remarkable scene in which Lorincz simply refuses to stand, refuses to put her wrists out for the cuffs, not aggressively, but with the courteously pathetic demeanor of someone whose mental health means that she just can’t do it. Did the gentle handling 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 revealed in the end titles. A very sombre portrayal of U.S. justice and consequences.