Young 'inconsolable' woman resists arrest in Oakfield, is pepper-sprayed
A distraught young female who was seen walking and screaming "inconsolably" in Oakfield was reported to dispatch and a law enforcement officer responded to her location at Maple Avenue and Gibson Street. She apparently refused to comply with the officer's directives and became abusive. As the officer attempted to arrest this person, she physically resisted and was pepper-sprayed. Mercy medics just arrived on scene to provide aid for the "irritant to the eyes."
UPDATE 1:38 p.m.: The patient was transported to a hospital in Medina.
I'm dreaming of a white Christmas.
It is ridiculous this was elevated to this level. The officer could have asked what was wrong and tried to calm her? Male officer and not comfortable with sobbing women; I think so. She did nothing wrong and did not have to comply with officer's directives. How was she abusive? Verbally maybe, asking him to leave her alone (with other wording most likely). There was NO NEED to pepper spray this woman. It's obvious to me she was upset enough.
This officer should be relieved of duty until he can get the proper training for this kind of situation. I just hope she is doing well today.
The responding officer was a woman.
The young arrestee was in public and clearly not in control of herself.
Thanks Billie for updates to the uninformed posts.
I've dealt with quite a few individules in a distraught and inconsolable condition. Some just sit and continue, some have gotton violent either to themselves or others. You never know.
I was not there so I don't know what she was doing. I think I can differ to the law enforcement officers be they male or female for their judgement in these matters. They are trained and think I can trust them. They have had my back quite a few times on scenes.
Santa Claus is coming - to town.
They sure do CM.... Before the updates some woman who probably wasnt there and has no idea how these things go down first assumed the cop dealing with this woman was male. Then went on to create a completely assumed scenario and calls for the officer to be relieved of duty. I love the assumptions people make about what the police do and how they do what they do. It just shows ignorance of how the world works. Here is a little thought provoker you should think about before assuming and cutting down what they do...
An Officer’s Life
*You wonder why he pulled you over and gave you a ticket for speeding,
He just worked an accident where people died because they were going too fast.
*You wonder why that cop was so mean,
He just got done working a case where a drunk driver killed a kid.
*You work for 8 hours,
He works for up to 18 hours.
*You drink hot coffee to stay awake,
The cold rain in the middle of the night keeps him awake.
*You complain of a "headache," and call in sick,
He goes into work still hurt and sore from the guy he had to fight the night before.
*You drink your coffee on your way to the mall,
He spills his as he runs Code 3 to a traffic crash with kids trapped inside.
*You make sure you're cell phone is in your pocket before you leave the house,
He makes sure his gun is clean and fully loaded and his vest is tight.
*You talk trash about your "buddies" that aren't with you,
He watches his buddy get shot at, and wounded in front of him.
*You walk down the beach, staring at all the pretty girls,
He walks down the highway looking for body parts from a traffic crash.
*You complain about how hot it is,
He wears fifty pounds of gear and a bullet proof vest in July and still runs around chasing crack heads.
*You go out to lunch, and complain because the restaurant got your order wrong,
He runs out before he gets his food to respond to an armed robbery.
*You get out of bed in the morning and take your time getting ready,
He gets called out of bed at 2 am after working 12 hours and has to be into work A.S.A.P. for a homicide.
*You go to the mall and get your hair redone,
He holds the hair of some college girl while shes puking in the back of his patrol car.
*You're angry because your class ran 5 minutes over,
His shift ended 4 hours ago and there's no end in sight.
*You call your girlfriend and set a date for tonight,
He can't make any plans because on his off days he still gets called back into work.
*You yell and scream at the squad car that just past you because they slowed you down,
He's in the driver seat of the squad car, going to cut somebody out of their car.
*You roll your eyes when a baby cries in public,
He picks up a dead child in his arms and prays that it was crying.
*You criticize your police department and say they're never there quick enough,
He blasts the siren while the person in front of him refuses to move while talking on their cell phone.
*You hear the jokes about fallen officers and say they should have known better,
He is a hero and runs into situations when everyone else is running away in order to make sure no one else gets hurt and loses his life doing it.
*You are asked to go to the store by your parents, you don't,
He would take a bullet for his buddy without question.
*You sit there and judge him, saying that it's a waste of money to have them around,
Yet as soon as you need help he is there.
Barbara, I would think that you feel like an ass now after learning of the facts as opposed to your biased assumptions.
We are all guilty of sometimes opening our mouths before engaging our brains.
Your post illustrates that.
Let's get this straight: People are second-guessing the actions of a law enforcement officer not on the basis of being there and actually witnessing something, but rather on the limited information available that we were able to glean from emergency transmissions?
Blah blah blah......boo hoo!!!! As I see it....most are only one crime away of being the same as you suggest they protect........JUST have not been caught! Yes I might agree there is a small percentage that are honest....BUT they CHOSE that vocation....if you need documentation of my assertions....I am more than willing to provide.
Yes Paul, I would like UNBIASED documentation that only a small percentage of law enforcement officers are honest, law abiding people protecting our communities.
Blogs are not unbiased. Please provide us with FACTUAL documentation that the majority of public servants are really crooks.
BTW, I do agree with you on one of your points: "most are only one crime away of being the same as you suggest they protect.".
The key point here is that the vast majority DO NOT COMMIT A CRIME!
I really like this paper. It is a nice change from The Daily in that information is immediately available.
I commented on an article I saw here this morning. I relied on the information given. Now Howard says it was not the whole story and it was a report of only what he could "glean" from the transmission. That is not enough information to post a story. Get the whole story, then publish it.
It seems the same people are always commenting and now I know why. If anyone from outside this little circle voices an opinion, they are quashed and even called an ass! Howard, if you want a little closed group reading and voicing their opinion here, you have it. Is it really OK with you than a person calls another person an ass? Or that the publisher voice his opinion too? Really?
I was a paralegal for over 30 years and I have seen the police use force when it was absolutely necessary and I have also seen them use force when it was not necessary at all. The later part of that sentence, sadly, is more often the case. This should be the crux of this story. I just hope this poor woman is well tonight.
Howard: I have never seen any other publisher or reporter get into commenting on their own paper. I know this is just an online paper, but the NY Times, D&C and even The Daily News don't have publishers, editors and/or reporters get into the middle of a conversation.
You said it was a male officer who just did not know how to respond to a sobbing female. When told the officer was female, you did not apologize for your wrong accusation. You also said there was no reason for the use of pepper spray, but you have no real knowledge if there was or not.
And you say that being a paralegal "I have seen the police use force". Not many paralegals ride around with the police, so did you actually see all that use of force you say you did, or did you just hear it from reports? Or are you exaggerating to make a point of some sort?
Someone once suggested a time limit on editing posts. Looks like a "run by fruiting" took place in the comments section.
Barbara, get over yourself. I am a regular poster here and get ripped on a regular basis for my conservative viewpoint.
You made an obvious biased comment without true knowledge of the situation and were called on it.
BTW, I did NOT call you ass. I merely suggested that you must feel like one after learning some facts.
As far as Howard's posts, I too sometimes find them annoying, but in this case he was clarifying the situation - which I think is completely appropriate.
Barbra if you want to be as precise as any paralegal worth their salt should be you should re-read the original post. Then read what Bob said as well. He said you must feel inke an ass, not that you were an ass. If I see someone and say they must feel blue that doesnt mean I'm calling them a smurf..... get it? As for what you think Howard should do and not do here, then maybe you should volunteer to write a few articles to show us how it's done.
As for your indignation and sensibilites being shocked that Howard comments in the comments section. I could go to the papers you mentioned (at least their online versions) and cut and paste every instance where editors and reporters not only respond to comments but actually take a stand on issues they wrote about. But I don't think I will, this comment just shows how new you are to this type of forum.
As for the clique of contributors you refered to here, they/we are some sharp cookies, all of us have our turns at being called names and getting ganged up on. However we do know how to take that as well as the good from here. Having the right to voice your comments and opinions doesnt give you the right to not hear what others think of them. Put on the big girl pants and join the rest of us :)
Barb, you contradict yourself.
First you say you like The Batavian for its timeliness. Then you fault us for taking the information available and publishing instead of getting more first.
It would be impossible to go to the scene of every incident and gather more information. Timewise, it would just be a physical impossibility. It also wouldn't be very productive.
Let's take this case has an example. If I left the house immediately, it would take me 15 minutes to get to Oakfield. In many cases, the scene would be clear by the time I got there, and when I did, what would I find out. The officer would tell me, most likely, in this case, the woman physically resisted arrest and the officer used mace.
I wasn't there at the time of the incident, so I have no way of knowing -- other than taking the officer's word for it -- that those facts are true, because I wasn't there, just as you were not there, to actually witnesses. It would be impossible for me to get there in time to witnesses.
The news business is a messy game. There is rarely ever any way to know if something is true with 100 percent certainty. You do the best you can to be as accurate as you can, regardless the source of information, and hope you're right. Some times the source of information is wrong and sometimes you misunderstand the source, and so mistakes are made, or you don't have all the accurate facts you would like to have. But you still have to do the best you can with what you have.
It's well known by our readers we take information off the scanner. Most of them understand the incomplete nature of the information, but they appreciate getting quick information on why the fire truck just went by their office, or why all the police are at the end of their street. If it's a big enough story, I'll drop what I'm doing and go to the scene, but most of the time it works very well to leave it to what we know off the scanner and people are satisfied with that. It's not a perfect system, but no news gathering system is perfect and it's better than being in the dark on so many of these otherwise minor calls.
This isn't a closed group. Anybody can participate. We have new people joining all the time. We also have just occasional commenters.
I know about online communities, having written articles on it, spoken at national and international conventions on it ... and there is a truth all online community managers know: The vast majority of people who participate in an online community never comment. It's called the 90-9-1 rule. Ninety percent read without ever commenting, 9 percent sometimes leave a comment, 1 percent dominate the conversation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%29
So the fact that 1 percent of our comment readers (not all of The Batavian readers are comment readers) dominate the conversation isn't proof that it's a closed group, or that outsiders are not welcome. It's proof of the 90-9-1 rule, nothing more. It's just the nature of the Internet.
Finally, as for my participation, I've been in online publishing since 1995. I've been an executive with three different newspaper companies, including a large national chain. I've written about, lectured about, taught about both at conventions and within my own companies, the necessity of journalists participating in their online communities. Foolishly, they still don't listen. Frankly, I think they're idiots for not doing so, and it's one reason their online properties don't succeed as well as they might.
The Batavian is far and way the most popular online source for news in Genesee County.
Two key factors (among others) are how quickly we post breaking news and how active our comment section is (far more active than available alternatives).
Judging by your follow-up comment, you're an intelligent adult able of standing up for yourself. You'll do fine commenting on stories here if you don't take criticism and disagreements personally.
I am willing to be pepper sprayed if this thread is stopped.
Kyle, a heartfelt thank you for your post putting into perspective "our" lives compared to "their" lives.
Why some people automatically assume these dedicated and professional men and women are always wrong and have their own agendas perplexes me.
Barbara, you may not comment again, but I know you are reading this. I implore you to take 1 or 2 "ride alongs" with the police agency that protects you and your community every single day 24/7/365. I am absolutely convinced that your opinion of law enforcement officers will change.
There are bad apples in all walks of life. I submit to you that in this particular arena the percentage is much, MUCH, lower than in any other profession, public or private sector.
I wouldn't want to be a police officer, I don't have the patience it takes to be an effective officer.
Without a doubt, this officer was probably with no other
recourse than use mace to control the incident
Kudos Barb! Well stated.........hope we don't get deleted.
Howard, the trend is true in live video gaming systems with interactive mics and audio ,
a small % dominate the talk.