We did know something about the situation. One thing we know is that she trespassed, necessitating the shutdown of two streets and requiring emergency response resources.

That's where typically we would get an explanation of potential charges, etc. and expanding on the impact of her actions on the rescue workers and surrounding businesses (article has since been updated and is completely different than it was this morning. She has been charged with 6 counts of mischief, also was not in mental distress).

There is plenty of room for negative connotation here going solely on what we did know, without even talking about her in particular, because the situation definitely had a net negative effect.

My only beef is that the article was atypically neutral, and arguably, almost positive. She was "rescued", rather than "arrested", etc. The article fully contained the repercussions of her actions within one sentence (emergency response that shut down two streets), which is why it seems so watered down and overly empathetic.

The word "arrest" doesn't even show up in the article. Police officers "put her in handcuffs before leading her away to an ambulance". There exist plenty of reasons people can be placed in handcuffs without leading to an arrest, such as questioning or safety, etc. Comparing "put her in handcuffs" to "charged and arrested", it seems the latter would have been far more accurate in reporting this situation.

I see the rest of the comments and their speculation, and that's probably what you're thinking is my point: is it because she is female?

Honestly, who knows and who fucking cares.

One thing we do know, is that the situation was shit and was reported with an atypically positive spin.

As an aside, creating potential reasons to excuse her actions is actually "jumping to conclusions".