Dean

Nov 25, 2025

1.0

Started good and actually similar thing happened to me. I have a problematic neighbor and once, he insulted my mother when they were outside, then when he returned he banged on our door and this is when I said enough was enough. I got furious, went outside and started banging on his door and telling him to come out and face me like a man to man. He didn't. But in this documentary, that problematic neighbor shot the door banger neighbor. Anyway, back to the documentary... Like I said it started good and was interesting and I was going to give it a big ratings, but as always they turned this documentary into a race thing, especially at the end when they said how many "whites are killing blacks" and then this moron democratic politician Sharpton... Unbelievable how they always turn everything into a race conflict and always, I repeat ALWAYS make us - whites bad. What happened here had absolutely nothing with race. As a punishment I give this show 1/10. Next time, try to be objective and focus on actual story instead of your hateful race propaganda!

This is likely to be seen as an unpopular assessment, for a variety of reasons and regardless of where one stands on the issues presented in this release. Director Geeta Gandbhir’s Netflix documentary examines the question of using potentially fatal force for self-protection under controversial state statutes known as Stand Your Ground laws. In particular, the film explores a 2023 case in Marion County, Florida in which resident Susan Lorincz shot and killed neighbor Ajike Owens by firing at her through the closed and locked front door of her home after claiming that she feared for her life when the victim allegedly began pounding angrily and relentlessly on the entrance to the structure. According to Lorincz, the incident – one in a long series of altercations with local residents in which she had complained to authorities of repeated trespassing and harassment (mostly by neighborhood children and despite signs warning of no trespassing on her property) – was the result of a purported panic response, primarily driven by traumatic experiences from her past that had left an indelible mark on her for years afterward. The neighbors, however, contended that this incident, as well as those that preceded it, were cases of reaction overreach, this time with deadly consequences. In telling this story, the filmmaker employs a unique approach, relying almost exclusively on law enforcement body cam footage recorded during visits to Lorincz’s residence at the time of reported incidents, supplemented by televised news reports and interrogation video taken when the perpetrator was taken into custody for questioning. This material was thus designed to give viewers an actual “you are there” feel to the storytelling (even if it occasionally plays like an episode of "COPS") rather than resorting to the interpretations of analysts and pundits who may have had their own agendas to carry out. However, no matter how fair-minded that narrative decision might be, it should be noted that this on-the-ground footage, like all other recorded material, can also be edited (evidenced here by some occasionally choppy cuts in the footage). And, as this offering plays out, one can’t help but get the sense that viewers are not necessarily being told the entire story from both sides. No matter how authentic this material might come across, it nevertheless feels potentially incomplete (such as where references to Lorincz’s history of trauma is concerned), despite the inclusion of otherwise-seemingly conclusive video evidence, material that, at least superficially, would appear to leave little to chance. That’s important to bear in mind in light of the documentary’s apparent intent of providing its audience with a teachable moment about the merits, ethics and employment of Stand Your Ground laws. What’s more, the depiction of the gut-wrenching grief of the Owens family in response to their loss is undeniably powerful, revelatory and moving, but at times it also has a certain exploitative and overly intrusive quality to it. The same could be said of Lorincz’s responses to her interrogation sessions, which go on longer than genuinely seems necessary. This is not to suggest that the behavior on display in these moments can or should be condoned – in some regards, from all parties connected to this scenario, including those associated with some of the content choices of the filmmaker – because there truly are no winners in this situation. Indeed, it’s a horrendous tragedy all the way around, a story that never should have had to have been told in the first place, the production’s Independent Spirit Award nomination for best documentary notwithstanding. I suppose it’s nevertheless something that ultimately had to see the light of day; it’s just a shame that it had to happen that way.

CinemaSerf

Jul 21, 2026

6.0

There's something really quite disturbing about this body-cam led feature, and something distressingly unnecessary about it too. What is immediately clear to the viewer is that over a two year period of filming, Susan Lorincz is ill. Now I'm no psychiatrist but if you are police officers constantly being called to a property by a woman who is claiming all sorts of often quite trivial infractions on her property by her neighbours, you might start to wonder whether or not she is just an attention seeking nuisance or perhaps something more akin to a paranoid individual. Her neighbours are by no means perfect, and it seems likely that on occasion their dogs and/or their children are actually trespassing on her property, but her reactions seem to indicate something much more traumatic is going on with this woman. As we garner comments from those neighbours over time we have to wonder why clinicians weren't involved earlier to ensure that she wasn't a danger to herself or to others, especially as her own video statements often prove to be confused and downright contradictory. Then the police are summoned to a shooting. A Murder. A neighbour, Ajike, has been shot by a Lorincz who claimed to have acted in panic after hearing someone outside her own front door. The police now have a delicate task to perform. Was the victim on the property illegally and did Lorincz have a legimate right to self defence or was this just an angry and trigger-happy woman for whom an incident like this was just a matter of time? By piecing together the video evidence and the statements she made immediately after the killing, the police decide there is evidence of manslaughter and she is to be tried. Is she competent to stand trial? Opinions are divided but to trial she goes... Of course it is very easy to be wise after the event, but what puzzled me most was just why these repeated police visits didn't result in a more cohesive response from the authorities to investigate the root causes of this woman's behaviour and to treat her - should that have been necessary. It also begs - or shouts rather loudly - the question as to why she was permitted to have a gun in the first place? Was she ever subject to any form of (regular) psychiatric assessment? It's easy to say the police were laissez faire about the whole thing, but what rights did they actually have to intercede and how qualified were these officers to spot potential mental health issues from people who aren't committing crimes? This asks a lot of questions that will undoubtedly frustrate both the family of the victim and a police force that maybe could or should have done more, earlier, and more definitively and in my view continues to ask about the "right to bear arms" that is so divisive and often fatal in the USA.