/

Man arrested after alleged disorderly conduct on Bridge Street

1 min read
Joel Batzell
Joel Batzell

FARMINGTON – A local man with a history of disorderly conduct and indecent exposure arrests was in custody again Saturday, after he allegedly took his clothes off in public.

Joel Batzell, 64 of Farmington, was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and violating the conditions of his release on Saturday, Sept. 13, after police responded to his residence on Bridge Street at approximately 3 p.m.

According to Farmington Police Department Deputy Chief Shane Cote, a passerby called the dispatchers to complain that Batzell had taken his clothes off in public. Police responded and warned Batzell, but he remained disorderly, Cote said. Batzell allegedly took a rock and dropped it on the hood of the cruiser, which resulted in Officer Derek Doucette placing him under arrest.

Batzell’s bail conditions include a requirement that he be clothed in public “from the waist to the thigh,” according to Cote. That bail stems from a July arrest in which Batzell was charged with indecent conduct, after he allegedly wandered through traffic in a diaper, shouting at motorists.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

23 Comments

  1. This man is obvious mental unstable and should be getting mental services but if one does not ask for help help will not come..

  2. He has a long history of mental illness and total disregard for any morals or laws. The town has been more patient with him than with any others regarding these issues and the house which is not safe. He needs another trip to Riverview and the building torn down as it is not safe.

  3. agree with other post— he’s been in the paper for these issues several time—he is clearly not well— hazard to himself–he needs to be in appropriate care facility etc….

  4. The time has come when the courts need to put Joel in Riverview or somewhere where he cannot get out and cause anymore trouble. He is a very serious mental case and refuses help so the courts need to take action. The place he calls home used to be Carl Lyons garage and it it is oil soak and a dangerous building where no one should be living. It should have been torn down years ago. Now it should be torn down as a dangerous building before it becomes a raging fire and burns other buildings in the area. Time for the town to take action thru the courts for the neighbors and other safety

  5. Leave him alone, he isn’t hurting anybody. I always flinch when someone is anxious to have the rights of someone they don’t agree with violated … Rights are not supposed to be relative. Yes, I realize he had bail conditions: without revisiting a prior “offense,” this does not say he was exposing himself. Maine law is pretty clear about what is and is not permitted. Frankly, Joel has been here a lot longer than many … perhaps West Farmington should just consider him a given. Again, it is important to note he is HARMLESS. Better to ferret out the drug dealers and domestic abusers who commit crimes behind their “decent” facades.

  6. Why can’t he just be left alone, naked or not he is not hurting anyone. If people took the time to get to know him he is very sweet and extremely smart.

  7. Karen & Friend: He’ll be ‘harmless’ right up until he isn’t harmless anymore. I think you’d also find a lot of people willing to argue that walking around exposing himself and throwing rocks at cars doesn’t exactly fit the definition of ‘harmless.’

    Those of us lucky to live here so long have seen this song and dance play out again and again for over 30 years now. He’s a bastion of nostalgia, for sure… but at this point he’s just putting his safety and the safety of others in jeopardy. He needs help and everybody knows it.

  8. often people feel like placing a person like this into a care facility is going to be bad/worse for the individual. Obviously, some facilities are very good and some not good. Whenever possible, interested parties and family can advocate/research for a quality placement that concerned parties feel comfortable with. Very very very often these individuals DO MUCH BETTER with the structure and care provided by a facility. Their nutrition, personal hygiene, clothes, medical treatment and medications get managed/ structured and the individual often feels a lot better and is in better overall health. Even when a person is in court ordered care/deemed unable to care for themselves they are still entitled to, protected human rights—so for example the individual can’t be forced to eat things they don’t want, take medication they don’t want, brush their teeth etc– they still have the right to say “no” to things they don’t want–even if they are court ordered to stay in care due to risk to themselves or others.

    I’m not familiar specifically with Franklin County— but generally speaking, if this individual has no family members or family members willing—any person who knows him can petition the Court of Probate to determine if he needs a “Conservator”- there is Conservator of the Person and Conservator of the Finances. When the court is petitioned–you can just identify yourself as a “interested party” with no intention of becoming the Conservator. The court typically orders a mental competency eval. If the individual is determined to be hazard to themselves or others/unable to care for themselves independently— Conservator(s) can/will be appointed, if no individual raises their hand for the job then the State will become their Conservator.

  9. I’ve known Joe for years. He has some problems sure, and he has reason for most of them. He is harmless, in the sense that there is no malice. Leave him be, please.

  10. Where is the line that is crossed that determines whether or not someone needs intervention.
    Depends on who you ask.

    His “friends”say he’s harmless.
    Joel says he’s harmless.
    That’s their line.(of course).
    Birds of a feather,,,

    I say he needs some special attention/protection.
    He has wavered back and forth across my line when he acts up in public.
    He may very well cause an altercation/accident, may harm himself.
    Abnormal is fine.
    This has gone beyond that.
    Intervene.

  11. I’m sorry Karen– walking around in the road naked is not harmless. He’s not an axe murderer but he is putting himself at risk by being uncontrolled in the road —as well as potentially causing a car accident for someone driving by. Take a look at the differences between empathy and sympathy —-and the differences between caring and enabling….

  12. Its also about being harmless to himself. Seems like if his judgment is so skewed, there is a chance he could get hit by a car on Rt 2+4. That’s a tough road with trucks and all.

    And I do think he is pushing the limit of “leave him alone”. Or can we all walk around naked and throw rocks?

  13. Wandering up the road, naked or not, unaware of where he is is not harmless. One of those logging trucks comes zipping around the corner and no one will have to worry abiout him again, except for the quilt of the truck driver. Also motorists are distracted by his erratic behavior, and that could also cause an accident. he does need help, or a keeper or something, but can’t be allowed to wander around on his own, not anymore.

  14. First off, just to be clear, there are 2 “Karen”s posting, I am the one that does not know Joel. I see a lot of people leaping to conclusions (there is nothing here about walking in the travel lanes of any road, or being naked or lewd, or throwing rocks; the Sun Journal story says he put a cigarette on the police car). Joel is mostly known for throwing candy… I see a lot of amateur psychiatrists here. And I see a lot of people wanting to strip away the rights of an adult US citizen who has been functioning, albeit in his own way, for years. In this country we don’t lock people up and destroy their property without cause. And at least according to the Constitution I am familiar with, we don’t – or shouldn’t – take away those rights just because our precious sensibilities are offended. One man’s rights are all people’s rights, why is this so hard to comprehend? If he violates the law, address it appropriately based on those actions. But just because someone is a nuisance, or a wise guy, or a chronic accumulator of misdemeanors who tries the patience of self-styled decent folk, doesn’t mean it’s time to lock him up and throw away the key. What if in 10 years YOUR lifestyle is in the minority? At least consider that. Would I want to live next door to Joel? No. But that does not mean he does not have the right to be himself. Again. If he violates the law address it appropriately. Otherwise, stop harassing the guy. He isn’t going to change after all these years. And seriously, why does he upset you so much?

  15. There are laws in place regarding being naked in public. If this person and his sympathizers think the laws are wrong, work to change them. No one is allowed to pick and choose which laws to follow without consequence. Another point – how often do we read about children being molested? How is someone with that kind of trauma in their personal history going to respond to seeing a naked old man walking around in public? His behavior is WRONG, potentially devastating to someone with sex-crime related PTSD, and it needs to stop.

  16. Lock him up.
    We, as Mainer’s, take pride in our pruritanical vitorian upbringing.
    If he wants to walk around naked, send him to Vermont (where it is perfectly legal).
    We live in Maine, and we like to regulate wherever possible.
    Trash in your yard? Barking Dogs? Swimming in the Wilton lake?
    Heck, we even have laws in Maine that make it illegal to haul a Lobster trap on a Sunday!
    The more laws the better… we want to be free from all these types.

  17. Thank you, Karen, for recognizing that rights matter. The last time (a few years ago) that Joel was accused of going naked it turned out that he hadn’t done that, and his case was dismissed. Perhaps he didn’t do it this time either–the only evidence is what someone claimed to glimpse from a moving car. Thank you also for pointing out that he didn’t throw rocks, and what he put on a car was a cigarette.

    Joel is a character, and now and then he gets attacked; and when the news report appears there are always a string of comments motivated by sheer hatred. There must be people doing real harm, but somebody always has to hate Joel and write nonsense about locking him up to “help” him. There is no place where Joel can be put to help him; he has a home, and his billboard is a real asset to the town. I’ve also never known him to write to a public medium advocating locking someone else up.

    I’ve known him for many years; he is Joel, that’s all. God bless him.

  18. I agree with Louey C— if the antics cause him to get injured in an accident or cause someone else to get injured—– then it’s to late for intervention.

  19. Just like you cant yell “FIRE or BOMB in a crowded theatre,,,
    You cant put on a DIAPER and parade around at a crowded intersection without causing problems.
    He “IN FACT” did this.
    It makes me chuckle too but,,,at a BUSY INTERSECTION,,,REALLY??!!!!
    To say this is harmless is irresponsible.

    Gimme a break,,You cant help but look at an adult man wearing a diaper.
    which takes your eyes off the road for a split second.
    Thats all it takes at that busy section of PUBLIC roadway.
    Just like you cant help the urge to bolt for the exit of a crowded theatre if someone yells “FIRE,,or BOMB” !!
    So,,,,,,no problem with this according to you,,,right??

    If it’s not in “PUBLIC”,,,you can yell or wear anything you want.
    BUT YOU CANT CAUSE SAFETY PROBLEMS FOR EVERYONE ELSE,,,

    I dont even care to know “WHY” certain people act this way.
    Or why certain others defend these potentially dangerous actions by calling everyone else haters.
    Seems like the “buzzword for the fringe” nowadays.
    Was it a Rock/Cigarette…..Naked/Diaper…..????
    Either way…….

    You can hire him to babysit your children if you want, thats your right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.