I read that column a bit differently. The letter writer was complaining that the lady probably did not say “acting strangely.” The LW thought that the Chronicle put words in the lady’s mouth that she did not actually say, and they were ungrammatical to boot. She seemed to think that the Chronicle did that all the time, and she was fed up with it.
Yes, I would image the original distraught woman did not say “My son has been acting strangely.” But I bet she also didn’t say “And he has threatened my safety.” Both halves of that sentence are paraphrased.
She probably said something much more colorful – and less suitable to a general-audiences newspaper – such as “He’s been all fucked up and said he’d kick my ass.” And you can see why Caen and/or the Chronicle would clean that up a bit.
To me it is not at all clear who is being quoted in the newspaper - the lady herself, or the police report about what the lady said. If the police paraphrased what was said, and then the newspaper quoted the police paraphrasing, they are reporting the words directly - just not her words. If the newspaper is paraphrasing the lady herself and then putting it in quote marks, that is inappropriate. But given the phrasing of “her son” and “her safety”, I would assert they’re quoting the police, not the lady herself.
However, how can you be so sure the lady didn’t say it that way? While Da Ace’s version sounds more like what you might here on Cops or NYPD Blue, it does not mean that everyone the police deal with are unable to express their situations without vulgarity.