Before the shooting, Susan Lorincz had often complained about AJ’s children, who would play in an open field near her apartment.
She would call them derogatory names and racial slurs, but things came to a head on June 2, 2023, after AJ went to Lorincz’s apartment to confront her following a reported incident involving one of her sons.
When AJ knocked and shouted for Lorincz to open the door, Lorincz fired a single shot through the locked door and it killed the 35-year-old mother. Lorincz claimed it was in self-defence, but she was eventually charged with manslaughter and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
To this day, AJ’s death has had a harrowing impact on her children – Isaac, Israel, Afrika and Titus – and their lives.
Israel was standing next to his mother when she was shot and he was just nine years old at the time.
Isaac, her eldest son, also witnessed the shooting and called 911, running to a neighbour’s house to get help.
Heartbreakingly, Israel and Isaac have both admitted to feeling responsible for their mother’s death.
On the one-year anniversary of her death, AJ’s children recited a poem at a memorial service.
Ever since, the children have been raised by their grandmother, Pamela Dias.
Dias revealed the impact AJ’s death has had on the children, saying Isaac has been in trauma therapy, according to People.com.
She was also researching counselling for Israel, while sharing how Titus, who was just a toddler when his mother died, was “confused, irritable and inconsolable” in the weeks after.
She told CNN in October 2025: “It’s been very hard for the children – they were very young when they lost their mother, and it’s something no child should have to endure.
“At the same time, they’ve shown strength and resilience that continues to amaze me.
“I can see the values my daughter instilled in them – her kindness, her love, her faith – and that means they carry a piece of her wherever they go.”
Dias has since co-founded a non-profit organisation in honour of her daughter called the Standing in the Gap Fund, which aims to support families impacted by gun and racial violence and to fight for legislative change.
Ajike “AJ” Owens was a dedicated 35-year-old mother of four when she was shot and killed by her 58-year-old neighbor, Susan Lorincz, in June 2023. The tragedy, which rocked the otherwise peaceful, tight-knit community of Ocala, Fla., followed years of Lorincz making habitual calls to the police to report neighborhood kids, including Owens’, for playing in a vacant lot next to her home. Lorincz, who is white, claimed that the children — most of whom are Black and were under 12 — were a threat, citing one of the nation’s many “stand your ground” laws, which allow individuals to use deadly force to protect themselves if they feel their life is in danger.
Now award-winning filmmaker Geeta Gandbhir, with the support of producer-husband Nikon Kwantu and such nonfiction luminaries as Sam Pollard and Soledad O’Brien, has chronicled the two years leading up to Owens’ death in “The Perfect Neighbor,” premiering Friday on Netflix after an Oscar-qualifying theatrical run. Composed almost entirely of police body camera footage, the moving and powerful verité documentary uses the case to depict the perils of such laws, which are all too easily misused or abused in a society where not every claim of self-defense is treated equally.
A jury convicted Lorincz of manslaughter in August 2024, but the repercussions of her erratic and violent behavior continue to impact the Owens family and their neighbors. Gandbhir, whose sister-in-law was a close friend of Owens, hopes “The Perfect Neighbor” will honor Owens’ memory while showing how our nation’s growing fear of “the other” and the proliferation of “stand your ground” laws are a deadly combination.
Initially, you weren’t planning on making a film about this tragic killing, but you were documenting the aftermath of the crime. Why?
We got a call the night Ajike was killed, and we immediately jumped into action to try to help the family. We stepped in to be the media liaisons. They looked to us to try to keep the story alive in the media, just because they were worried [it would be overlooked]. This is Ocala, Fla., the heart of where “stand your ground” was born. Susan wasn’t arrested for four days because they were doing a “stand your ground” investigation. We were not thinking about making a doc, really. We were just terrified that there would be no justice.
But in Ajike’s case, there’s reams of footage and audio recordings that captured what happened. How were you able to obtain so much of that material from the police department?
Anthony Thomas, who works with [civil rights attorney] Benjamin Crump, had sued the police department through the Freedom of Information Act and got them to release all of the material that they had pertaining to the case. That’s how we got the footage. What came to us was the police body camera footage, detective interviews, Ring camera footage and cellphone footage. There was also all the audio calls that Susan had made to the police, and then after the night of the [killing], the calls the community had made. There was basically a plethora of stuff that we were handed, in a jumble, and Anthony was like, “Sort this out. See if you can find anything that makes sense for the news, like snippets we can share.”
I was surprised at how much material there was, and I’m just talking about what made it into the film.
It speaks to how much Susan called the police. Basically, the body cam footage [was a result of those calls]. What’s interesting is the reaction when we screened the film for the community. They agreed to be part of this so we wanted to show them before it came out. We’re very concerned with participant care and the ethics of this. They said that they didn’t think that we had everything, because Susan [allegedly] called the police sometimes, like, 10 times a day. They [said they] think the police gave us maybe what they could organize, where they don’t look terrible. But they don’t think that that’s everything.
Ajike “AJ” Owens, pictured on the poster, was shot and killed by her neighbor in 2023. The crime is at the center of Geeta Gandbhir’s new documentary “The Perfect Neighbor.”
Ajike’s mother, Pamela Dias, has been a major force in keeping her daughter’s memory alive — and seeking justice. How did she feel about you making this film?
I went to Pamela and said I could make a movie and maybe we could make a change. It’s quite an endeavor to try to change gun laws or the “stand your ground” law, but maybe we can reach people. She said yes. This is a woman who by her own admission was blinded by grief [when Ajike was killed], who said she couldn’t see two feet in front of her. But she knew even then that her daughter’s story had to be told. She said her daughter died standing up for her kids, and she felt it was her turn to stand up.
I told her the material was graphic. But Pam was inspired by Emmett Till and how his mother had an open-casket funeral and told the photographers to take pictures because she wanted the world to know what had happened to her baby. Plus, we thought about George Floyd and [how footage of his killing] sparked a movement. It is a terrible thing to bear witness, but if we let these things continue to happen in the shadows, then they will happen forever. It’s only by bearing witness that things might change.
What about your own emotional well-being while making this film?
See all my gray hair? [Laughs.] I realized later it was grief work for me, because I needed to know what happened. I had to know what happened. I couldn’t understand how someone could pick up a gun and kill their neighbor over children playing nearby. How did we get here? So many questions were just eating me, so the work was in some ways cathartic. Then once we had it all strung out and I thought it was a film, I brought on Viridiana Lieberman, who’s our editor. We had a similar sensibility about what we wanted this to be and we really committed to living in the body camera footage.
“Body camera footage is a violent tool of the state,” Gandbhir says. “It’s often used to criminalize us, particularly people of color. It’s used to dehumanize us, to surveil us, to protect the police. What I wanted to do with this material was flip that narrative and use it to humanize this community.”
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Why not use narration?
I worked for 12 years in narratives and scripted before I segued into documentary. I learned that the best vérité documentaries are show and not tell. If you tell people what they’re seeing, there’s some room for doubt or for your bias or some questioning around it. But to me, this footage plays like vérité. There’s no reporter on the ground. There’s no one influencing what’s happening in the neighborhood, other than the police who are coming in and asking questions. I felt that made the footage and the story undeniable. No one could say that we were down there asking provocative questions. And the body camera footage is so incredibly immersive, I wanted people to have the experience of what the community experienced.
How would you describe what they went through?
Their experience felt a bit like a horror film. You have this beautiful, diverse community living together with a strong social network, taking care of each other and each other’s kids. What was so powerful to me in the body camera footage is you really got to see this community as they were before [the tragedy], and you never get that. There’s horrible shootings all the time, and we see the aftermath, right? We see the grieving family, we see the funeral. We have to re-create what their lives were like before. And in this, you see this beautiful community thriving and living together, and that was so profound. I wanted to rebuild their world so everyone could see the damage done by one outlier with a gun. How she was the only one who was repeatedly calling the police and seeing threats where there were none.
We’re used to seeing police body cam footage used as evidence following a police brutality incident, or as entertainment in true crime shows. It’s used to tell a very different story in your film.
I wanted to subvert the use of body cam footage. Body camera footage is a violent tool of the state. It’s often used to criminalize us, particularly people of color. It’s used to dehumanize us, to surveil us, to protect the police. What I wanted to do with this material was flip that narrative and use it to humanize this community.
Why do you think that Susan was not seen as a threat by the police?
She’s a middle-aged white lady. She weaponized her race, her status, and she kept trying to weaponize the police against the community. The fact that she was using hate speech against children [she allegedly called them the N-word]. She was filming them. She was throwing things at them. She was cursing at them. But the police didn’t flag her as more than just a nuisance…. After the third time she called and it was unfounded and not about an actual crime, there should have been some measure taken to reprimand her. They didn’t tell the community that they could file charges against her: “She’s harassing you all. She’s harassing your children.” It was systemic neglect. And honestly, should the police be a catch-all for everything? Probably not. But they were not equipped. They didn’t take the necessary steps and the worst outcomes happened, which is that we lost Ajike, and Susan is in prison for the rest of her life. I’m sure that’s not the outcome she wanted.
There’s a moment in the film where a policeman knocks on Susan’s sliding glass door. She doesn’t know it’s a cop. She opens the curtain and screams at him in a terrifying, almost demonic voice. It’s quite a switch from her nervous, genial 911 calls.
Yeah, the jump scare. That was one of the moments where I was like, “Oh, there she is.” And the 911 call, after she shot Ajike. She was hysterical. Then her voice changes when she says, “They keep bothering me and bothering me, and they won’t f— stop.” I felt my heart clench, because it’s like, “Oh, there she really is.” She has this way of going between victim and aggressor. A little Jekyll and Hyde. It’s frightening.
The victim/aggressor dynamic is part of what makes “stand your ground” laws so dangerous. They can be weaponized.
“Stand your ground” policy was born in Ocala and now it’s in around 38 states, in different forms. It’s a law that emboldens people to pick up a gun to solve a dispute. If you can other-ize your neighbor to the extent of [killing] them, the question is, what else will you do? What else will we tolerate? As human beings, how we show up in our communities is a reflection of how we show up in the world. This film takes place on this tiny street, but it is a microcosm of what is happening today. Susan represented the dangers, and that little community represented the best of what’s under threat.
Investment advisor Paradiem, LLC disclosed a new purchase of Owens Corning(OC 0.58%), adding 85,047 shares in Q3 2025, an estimated $12.48 million trade based on the average price for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2025.
IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
What happened
According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated October 17, 2025, Paradiem, LLC increased its stake in Owens Corning substantially during the third quarter. The fund acquired 85,047 additional shares, bringing its total position to 94,067 shares, with a quarter-end reported value of $13.31 million.
What else to know
Paradiem, LLC’s addition brings Owens Corning to 3.1% of 13F reportable assets as of Q3 2025.
Paradiem’s top holdings after the filing as of September 30, 2025 are:
NASDAQ:LRCX: $27.44 million (6.4% of AUM)
NYSE:TEL: $19.53 million (4.55% of AUM)
NYSE:VLO: $17.87 million (4.2% of AUM)
NYSE:LMT: $16.13 million (3.76% of AUM)
NYSE:CAT: $15.79 million (3.7% of AUM)
As of October 17, 2025, shares of Owens Corning were priced at $126.96, with a one-year change of -33.04%, underperforming the S&P 500 by 45.03 percentage points.
Company Overview
Metric
Value
Revenue (TTM)
$11.74 billion
Net Income (TTM)
$333.00 million
Dividend Yield
2.17%
Price (as of market close 2025-10-17)
$126.96
Company Snapshot
Owens Corning is a leading global manufacturer specializing in insulation, roofing, and fiberglass composite products, with a diversified revenue base across construction and industrial end markets. The company leverages its scale and integrated operations to deliver essential building materials to a broad customer base.
Owens Corning manufactures and markets insulation, roofing, and fiberglass composite materials across three segments: composites, insulation, and roofing. It generates revenue through direct sales and distribution of building materials, glass reinforcements, insulation products, and roofing components to construction and industrial markets worldwide.
The company serves insulation installers, home centers, distributors, contractors, and manufacturers in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
Foolish take
Financial services company Paradiem upped its stake in Owens Corning in a big way. The stock went from 0.3% of the fund’s holdings to 3.1% in Q3. This action demonstrates a belief in Owens Corning despite shares being down significantly from the 52-week high of $214.53 reached last November.
Owens Corning stock is down this year due to macroeconomic conditions, such as higher interest rates and persistent inflation, which caused a slowdown in the construction sector. The company also underwent changes, such as divesting businesses in China and South Korea, to sharpen its focus, particularly on the North American and European markets.
Despite these factors, Owens Corning delivered 10% year-over-year sales growth in the second quarter to $2.75 billion. And its moves to divest less profitable businesses resulted in Q2 diluted earnings per share increasing 34% year over year to $3.91 for its continuing operations.
With the company’s stock down but its financials looking solid, Paradiem may have taken the opportunity to scoop up shares. After all, the Federal Reserve is widely expected to cut interest rates soon, which can help to stimulate the construction industry. These factors make Owens Corning a compelling investment, especially while its stock is down.
Glossary
13F reportable assets: Assets that institutional investment managers must disclose quarterly to the SEC, showing certain equity holdings. AUM (Assets Under Management): The total market value of investments that a fund or manager oversees on behalf of clients. Stake: The ownership interest or number of shares held in a particular company by an investor or fund. Quarter-end: The last day of a fiscal quarter, used as a reference point for financial reporting. Dividend Yield: Annual dividends paid by a company divided by its share price, expressed as a percentage. TTM: The 12-month period ending with the most recent quarterly report. Filing: An official document submitted to a regulatory authority, often containing financial or ownership information. Segments: Distinct business divisions within a company, often based on product lines or markets served. Distribution: The process of delivering products from manufacturers to end customers or intermediaries. End markets: The industries or customer groups that ultimately use a company’s products or services.
Robert Izquierdo has positions in Caterpillar. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Lam Research. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin and Owens Corning. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
MELBOURNE, Australia — Australia’s highest court on Wednesday rejected U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens ’ bid to overturn an Australian government decision barring her from visiting the country.
Three High Court judges unanimously rejected Owens’ challenge to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s decision in 2024 to refuse her a visa on character grounds.
Owens had planned to begin a speaking tour in Australia last November and also visit neighboring New Zealand.
Burke used his powers under the Migration Act last October to refuse her a visa because she failed the so-called “character test,” court documents said.
Burke found there was a risk Owens would “incite discord in the Australian community” and that refusing her a visa was in the national interest.
Burke found that as a political commentator, author and activist, Owens was “known for her controversial and conspiratorial views.”
She had made “extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred,” Burke said in court documents.
Owens’ lawyers had argued the Migrant Act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communications.
Australia doesn’t have an equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment that states a right to free speech. But because Australia is a democracy, the High Court has decided that the constitution implies free speech limited to governmental and political matters.
Owens’ lawyers had argued that if the Migration Act was constitutional, then Burke had misconstrued his powers under that law in refusing her a visa.
The judges rejected both arguments and ordered Owens to pay the government’s court costs.
Burke described the ruling as a “win for social cohesion.”
“Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia,” Burke said in statement.
Owens’ spokeswoman told The Associated Press on Wednesday Owens would comment on the court decision later on social media.
Burke had told the court that while Owens already had an ability to incite discord through her 18 million followers across social media platforms, her presence in Australia would amplify that potential.
He noted that when Australia’s terrorism threat level was elevated from “possible” to “probable” last year, the national domestic spy agency reported an “increase in extremism.”
Australia has long used a wide discretion under the character test to refuse foreigners temporary visas.
Burke stripped Ye, the U.S. rapper formerly known as Kanye West, of an Australian visa after he released his single “Heil Hitler” in May this year.
Ye had been traveling for years to Australia, where his wife of three years, Bianca Censori, was born.
Burke’s decision to ban Owens prompted neighboring New Zealand to refuse her a visa in November on the grounds that she had been rejected by Australia.
But a New Zealand immigration official overturned that refusal in December, citing “the importance of free speech.”
Owens’ spokeswoman on Wednesday had no information about plans to visit New Zealand.
PARIS — A lawyer for France ‘s first couple said they’ll be seeking “substantial” damages from U.S. conservative influencer Candace Owens if she persists with claims that President Emmanuel Macron ‘s wife, Brigitte, is a man.
The lawyer, Tom Clare, said in an interview with CNN that a defamation suit filed Wednesday for the Macrons in a Delaware court was “really a last resort” after a fruitless yearlong effort to engage with Owens and requests that she “do the right thing: tell the truth, stop spreading these lies.”
“Each time we’ve done that, she mocked the Macrons, she mocked our efforts to set the record straight,” Clare said. “Enough is enough, it was time to hold her accountable.”
The Macrons have been married since 2007, and Emmanuel Macron has been France’s president since 2017.
In a YouTube video, Owens called the suit an “obvious and desperate public relations strategy,” and said the first lady is “a very goofy man.”
Owens is a right-leaning political commentator whose YouTube channel has about 4.5 million subscribers. In 2024, she was denied a visa from New Zealand and Australia, citing remarks in which she denied Nazi medical experimentation on Jews in concentration camps during World War II.
The 219-page complaint against Owens lays out “extensive evidence” that Brigitte Macron “was born a woman, she’s always been a woman,” the couple’s attorney said.
“We’ll put forward our damage claim at trial, but if she continues to double down between now and the time of trial, it will be a substantial award,” he said.
In Paris, the presidential office had no immediate comment.
In France, too, the presidential couple has for years been dogged by conspiracy theories that Brigitte was born as a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux, who supposedly then took the name Brigitte as a transgender woman. Jean-Michel Trogneux is, in fact, Brigitte’s brother.
Last September, Brigitte and Jean-Michel Trogneux won a defamation suit against two women who were sentenced by a Paris court to fines and damages for spreading the claims about the first lady online. A Paris appeals court overturned the ruling earlier this month. Brigitte and her brother have since turned to France’s highest court to appeal that decision, according to French media.
The Macrons first met at the high school where he was a student and she was a teacher. Brigitte Macron was then Brigitte Auzière, a married mother of three children.
Macron, 47, is serving his second and last term as president. The first lady celebrated her 72nd birthday in April.
Macron moved to Paris for his last year of high school, but promised to marry Brigitte. She later moved to the French capital to join him and divorced before they finally married.
Their relationship came under the spotlight in May when video images showed Brigitte pushing her husband away with both hands on his face before they disembarked from a plane on a tour of Southeast Asia.
Macron later dismissed the incident as play-fighting, telling reporters that “we are squabbling and, rather, joking with my wife,” and that it had been overblown into “a sort of geo-planetary catastrophe.”
