The recent arrest of a mentally ill homeless man in Burlington has prompted questions about the resources available for the city’s most vulnerable — and volatile — individuals.
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!
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!!
He would be under the care of a train guardian aka CORRECTION OFFICERS.
A trained guardian would be more helpful. That’s the point Jeanne K. made.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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!!
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.”