Michael Reynolds was arrested Saturday after he allegedly punched a Burlington restaurant owner in the chest. Reynolds is a familiar face to law enforcement: the altercation at East West Café was Reynolds’s 861st documented incident with police since 2011. The 40-year-old transient appeared in court and was back on the street this week.
Police publicized Reynolds’ lengthy criminal record in a press release emailed to local media Wednesday with the subject line, “DRUNKEN MAN ASSAULTS BUSINESS OWNER.” But the release left out the fact that Reynolds, who’s been arrested 117 times, is schizophrenic, according to a relative who lives out of state.
Reynolds’ mental illness is obvious, said Mark Redmond, the executive director of Spectrum, a social services organization. Redmond had frequently seen Reynolds shuffling down Church Street, oftentimes talking to himself. Two weeks before Reynolds’ latest arrest, Redmond wrote a letter — as a private citizen, not as a Spectrum employee — to the Burlington City Council.
“Why do we, as a supposedly civilized, just and compassionate society, allow [Reynolds], and others in a similar condition (of which there most certainly are) to live in this condition?” Redmond wrote. “Why do we witness his daily suffering, clearly and obviously due to a mental health condition which does not allow him to care for himself at even the most basic level, while also a threat to public safety?”
According a member of Spectrum staff who knew Reynolds, the homeless man had “been admitted to virtually every single residential setting available in the city of Burlington, be that low-barrier, Housing First, with all kinds of mental health and social supports, and rarely lasted more than a day due to his erratic and unsafe behavior which is a result of his severe mental health condition,” Redmond wrote in his letter.
During the month of June, Redmond noted, police dealt with Reynolds on a daily basis. He’s been convicted of crimes 31 times and has racked up dozens of tickets for which he owes the city nearly $12,000 in fines and fees.
What Reynolds needs, according to Redmond, is involuntary confinement. The bar for that is high in Vermont, and the number of beds is limited.
The responsibility lies with the state, Redmond noted, to provide more beds and ensure that the resources are available to meet the significant needs of someone like Reynolds.
VTDigger.org reported that 512 Vermonters were involuntarily hospitalized in fiscal year 2016.
“He needs help. A lot of help. He’s not going to get it in prison,” Redmond told Seven Days. “He’s been through every kind of community-based setting we’ve got and hasn’t succeeded.”
At the city level, two resolutions will come before the Burlington City Council on Monday. One, sponsored by Republican Kurt Wright (R-Ward 4) and backed by Burlington Police Chief Brandon del Pozo, would create criminal penalties for those who repeatedly commit “quality of life” offenses such as open container violations and urinating in public.
Councilor Adam Roof (I-Ward 8) also proposed convening a diverse group of support services and city stakeholders. He said evidence points to care-based solutions, rather than punitive efforts, as being more effective in preventing crime.
The goal, Roof added, is to “bring everyone under one roof” and to ensure that “all the services we have are deployed.” Eight city councilors have signed on as cosponsors.
“If we had a just and compassionate society, there would be a place for this young man. But it would not be community based, it would be involuntary confinement,” Redmond said.
He predicted an uphill battle: “There are too many people who don’t want to hear it.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Mark Redmond is speaking sense with regard to this man. Wright’s and DelPozo’s idea takes us back to the 1950s when “status crimes” were used to lock up the mentally ill and take them off the street. The unfortunate man in question should meet the criteria for involuntary commitment, given that he has shown himself to be a danger to himself and others because of his mental illness. Locking him up in a prison situation will only exacerbate his illness, placing him is a situation where the guards are not educated or trained to deal with such severe mental illness. He would come out worse than he went in, and that won’t be good for anybody.
No Katie , Reynolds latest arrest exposes holes in the judicial system . He is an menace to society while not wishing help for himself . Stop trying so hard to make him out to be a victim . He is a victimizer !
“Wright’s and DelPozo’s idea takes us back to the 1950s”
Please show me exactly where Chief Del Pozo said that he wanted to lock Mr. Reynolds up in prison? Please show me exactly where Chief Del Pozo said that he was against involuntary commitment for this man?
If we had a just and compassionate society, there would be a place for this young man. But it would not be community based, it would be involuntary confinement.”
Wow! That does sound like a just and compassionate society! And with the true and proven power of modern psychiatry for healing and growth, and with the heads of our social service agencies espousing such lucid wisdom, I wonder why things have not already changed?
I agree with the first commenter Barbara.
I really think people need to undertstand what it means when someone is mentally ill – it means they are not choosing their behavior! That’s why it’s so dangerous. Mental illness inherently means that something brain-related is causing a person to be unable to stop without meds to help fix the imbalance. People with schizophrenia are well-known to have problems going off-meds. For someone like Michael who has zero support system (no family or friends to safely access help from), there is no one to regulate his meds.
One thing I’m most sad about is the lack of inherent understanding from other members of this community as shown by the previous articles’ conments about this. Almost no one felt mental illness was a relevant or legitimate concern, but rather going by the numbers of felonies is plenty of info to base a decision on, and to “lock him up” and “why hasn’t it been done yet?”
It’s a shame this is like this, because if there is so much misunderstanding and taboo about mental illness, how many people have been pushing themselves way too hard and hurting themselves thinking it would be social suicide already to reach out for help?
Excuse me community, but I think the safety of the people who are not mentally ill takes priority over one person who is. Greater good served if threat is removed.
Saysme, I do believe you’re touting the same mentality as self-righteous dictators.
Why on earth should the safety of people not mentally ill take priority? Why is that a given to you?
And please elaborate on “removed”. What does “removed” mean to you? If it means arrest.and jail, that doesn’t work for schizophrenics. But why don’t you try it in your home and see how he reacts with no meds.
We a community based system like Adam Roof
This one is off the wall and totally wrong:
“One, sponsored by Republican Kurt Wright (Ward-4) and backed by Burlington Police Chief Brandon del Pozo, would create criminal penalties for those who repeatedly commit “quality of life” offenses such as open container violations and urinating in public. ”
I am shocked that our chief of police would back this.
We need help for the mentally ill, not criminal charges and prison.
cb
If Reynolds is a transient than I guess anyone that lives in Burlington for years is a transient. It seems that if you lived in town since 2011 that makes you a resident. I suggest people stop talking as those those that live on the streets are less than human. Under a Trump government that could mean concentration camps or worse.
“Reynolds is a familiar face to law enforcement: the altercation at East West Caf was Reynolds’s 861st documented incident with police since 2011. The 40-year-old transient appeared in court and was back on the street this week.”
transient
tranSHnt,tranznt/
adjective
adjective: transient
1.
lasting only for a short time; impermanent.
“a transient cold spell”
synonyms: transitory, temporary, short-lived, short-term, ephemeral, impermanent, brief, short, momentary, fleeting, passing, here today and gone tomorrow;
More
literaryevanescent, fugitive
“our interest in the environment must not be transient”
antonyms: permanent
staying or working in a place for only a short time.
“the transient nature of the labor force in catering”
noun
noun: transient; plural noun: transients
1.
a person who is staying or working in a place for only a short time.
synonyms: hobo, vagrant, vagabond, street person, homeless person, down-and-out; More
traveler, drifter, derelict
“the plight of poor transients”
2.
a momentary variation in current, voltage, or frequency.
Origin
late 16th century: from Latin transient- going across, from the verb transire, from trans- across + ire go.
I have known Reynolds for 20 years and he has gotten worse over the years. Burlington police state that they’re concerned yet I have seen them laugh about him. Mike is a very caring person if you take the time and effort to get to know him. I have supported him in numerous ways and I can’t do it alone. His brother, dad and gram have as well, since the death of his mom and niece years ago. People say they care yet they turn their cheeks. He does need long term involuntary inpatient treatment. He needs caring individuals to stand by him. His friends want him to be better and it needs to be a good ending not another statistic shot down by police due to his illness. This Mike is not the Mike I met and grew to enjoy.
People may be confusing our efforts to deal with other types of cases with that of Mike Reynolds. It doesn’t seem helpful to conflate them. As I’ve said elsewhere:
“In response to less severe but still persistent cases of lawbreaking downtown, I’ve advocated for giving our police the option to write a criminal ticket to a person who ignores repeated civil tickets for things like public open containers or urination. The idea that some sofflaws will respond to accountability and consequences when brought before a judge is based on the belief that they have agency and dignity. Escalating consequences are a requirement of fair jurisprudence. We already do this for noise and traffic violations. Most cities, even quite progressive ones, provide this option.
“This advocacy was never meant to address the case of Mike Reynolds, however. His tickets, arrests, trespass notices, they all accomplish nothing under the current system. He illustrates the current deficit of options, resources and commitment writ large as their most glaring example. His case is about the extent to which we are willing (and, just as importantly, able) to treat and/or institutionalize a person for what looks to be a lifelong and serious mental illness.”
I’m shocked at the people who have disliked/downvoted this comment by you, Jessica. I sincerely wish the best for Michael and for you and his other family.
There is a desperate need to learn what it is the mental health community needs in order to address this problem. It happens across the country. I have witnessed it time and time again. There are a fair few people that should definitely be approved for involuntary admittance eligibility, when their illness becomes a danger to themselves and/or others.
It makes me tremendously sad to see so many people be so judgemental and uncaring, and so swiftly. Every person has their own story. I’m so glad to hear he does have family support on some level. Thank you for posting, Jessica!!
Thank you Chief Del Pozo for clarifying! That is very helpful.
I’m going to copy/paste from the other article about this a comment someone asked:
“Is Mr. Reynolds an example of the type of person where he, the state/city, and public would be better served by hiring someone to be his full-time guardian, and rent an apartment for them to live in? This has worked in many other place around the US. Read Malcolm Gladwell’s ground=breaking “Million Dollar Murray” to learn about the origins of this approach. http://gladwell.com/million-dollar-murray/
I know some will yell “Nanny State” back at me, but this solution is being used in plenty of Red stats, and costs less than incarceration, emergency room visits, police responses, and all the other costs our community is incurring with this fellow. The solution “lock him up and throw away the key” just costs more, period. With the flexibility in our Medicaid waiver, this should be explored, perhaps?” – Jeanne K.
litebrite42, Reynolds should not be free to roam the streets. He is a menace to society. I don’t give a damn about trying to save him, to make him well. As Mark Redmond points out, Reynolds has run the gamut unsuccessfully of a multitude of services to try and help him. It hasn’t worked. Remove him from causing further damage to society. The greater good is to get him off the streets and to use resources for cases less severe. If you want to help him, to be part of the fairy tale just society you envision, invite him to live with you.
But he hasn’t been able to stay on his meds. Why isn’t him getting help for that and then seeing what he is like on his meds enough for you to understand the real issue here? You’re just plugging your ears…like children often do. It helps to be open to exploring options that *haven’t* been tried with him and others similar to him.
Litebrite42 I think you have blown a few bulbs. Like you just stated in your last post “he hasn’t been able to stay on his meds.”. And you go around saying the people that want to see this menace locked up are acting like children. Think about the fact that an adult man is making a choice not to take his meds and then he committed over 100 acts of menacing behavior that has lead to encounters with BPD or other law enforcement agencies over the years. If he would just take his meds problem solved is what you are saying? Heres the problem.
This guy will never learn out on the streets a free man. He must be locked up if for no other reason than time to think about getting his life on track. Let him sit behind bars and let the corrections department force feed him if necessary the meds you state he so badly needs and after he has accepted the fact that he needs to be on meds he can be a free man as long as he stays on his meds and lives at your house.
A trained guardian would be more helpful. That’s the point Jeanne K. made.
He would be under the care of a train guardian aka CORRECTION OFFICERS.
Citizen, correctional guards are not trained to take care of people, they just do their shift and make sure there is no fighting, etc. It would be up to the medical unit and the one in Vermont sucks! They only pass out meds and the prisoners are given options if they want to take them or not and they have to sign a paper saying they did not want to take them, so much for your theory.. now if Waterbury state hospital was still open that would be a different story!!
“A trained guardian would be more helpful. That’s the point Jeanne K. made.”
With all due respect, you’re suggesting that the taxpayers of Vermont should rent an apartment for Mr. Reynolds at $25k per year, and also hire someone at $50k per year or more to be this man’s personal attendant as he wanders the streets? Really? To shadow him 24 hours per day, every day? The already overstretched taxpayers of Vermont do not owe this man — and every one of the other transients hanging around Burlington who might be deemed mentally ill — the cost of renting an apartment for him and paying a professional to personally follow him around 24 hours a day and tell him, “Gee, Mike, you shouldn’t hit people,” “Gee, Mike, you should take your meds,” and “Gee, Mike, you shouldn’t drink that alcohol.” The evidence is pretty clear that free apartment or not, and free personal attendant or not, Mr. Reynolds would still engage in his daily routine of wandering the streets and assaulting people. And what happens when he becomes too assaultive or disruptive to the other tenants of the apartment building, and they want him out?
This might or might not be an option in other states with much bigger state budgets. I don’t think it’s realistic for Vermont.
Kenatwood52 your comment proves my point Mr Reynolds would have to make a choice take his meds and go free or refuse and remain behind bars. Life is full of choices and as adults we are forced to live the consequences of the choices we make. Mentally ill or not people have to be held accountable. We all live in reality not in a fantasy world and that being said you can not say oh if only Waterbury where open because it is not so the only option is jail.
A trained guardian, such as someone from VNA for example or Howard Mental Health are better trained than your jail guards who are NOT trained in things like that! I was also saying that Waterbury helped a lot of people until they shut down and the mental health facilities were supposed to handle problems but something went wrong and that apparently never happened..