BREAKING: GOP Virginia Lawmaker Doused in Gasoline, Set on Fire in His Office – Attacker Identified and in Custody

L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
49,963
Reaction score
136,597
Location
livingston county

BREAKING: GOP Virginia Lawmaker Doused in Gasoline, Set on Fire in His Office – Attacker Identified and in Custody​

A Danville, Virginia, City Councilman Lee Vogler was doused in gasoline and set on fire in his office on Tuesday.
Danville City councilman Lee Vogler was at his place of work at Showcase Magazine when he was attacked.


According to reports, the attacker, identified as Shotsie Michael Buck Hayes, 29, of Danville, threw five gallons of gasoline on Vogler before setting him on fire.

Showcase Magazine’s Andrew Brooks said the attacker forced his way in the magazine’s office as Vogler was visiting and poured a five-gallon container of gas on him.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

GOP Virginia Lawmaker Doused in Gasoline, Set on Fire in His Office - Attacker Identified and in Custody | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Danville, Virginia, City Councilman Lee Vogler was doused in gasoline and set on fire in his office on Tuesday.
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com
 
S&W Fan

S&W Fan

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
14,982
Reaction score
22,373
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
Peoples situational awareness these days seems to be virtually nonexistent. How is it that nobody noticed someone entering a building with a 5 gallon pail of gas?? Gas weighs just over 6lbs. Per gallon so the perp was carrying approx. 30+ pounds of liquid . Not too heavy but it should have been obviously awkward looking to say the least.
 
spat

spat

.950 JDJ
Messages
30,005
Reaction score
63,296
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
FP1201 said:
Attacking and deliberately setting someone on fire is arson and reason enough to extinguish their candle. Policy prohibition or not, concealed is concealed.
Click to expand...
If they had a policy prohibiting him from carrying, he should sue them for putting him in this situation because of their dangerous policy.

"Good intentions" isn't a defense when you expose someone to a danger.
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,969
Reaction score
40,404
Location
Western NY
How does one stand there long enough to have gas dumped on them, the container placed on the ground and them lit on fire? Run or hug the bastard, just don’t shoot em. It was a 5 gallon container so not small.
 
Z

Zerex

.308 Win
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
2,465
Location
Rome, NY
3rd degree burns are very painful, and many times result in infection and death.

Shotsie may be insane, or inbred.
 
Mosinitis

Mosinitis

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,483
Reaction score
7,881
Location
NY state
Jealousy can make normal people do crazy things. When screwing someone's wife that needs to be understood. Sounds like play stupid games win stupid prices case, if that's what happened.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
15,657
Location
Rochester
livingston said:
According to reports, the attacker, identified as Shotsie Michael Buck Hayes, 29, of Danville, threw five gallons of gasoline on Vogler before setting him on fire.

Showcase Magazine’s Andrew Brooks said the attacker forced his way in the magazine’s office as Vogler was visiting and poured a five-gallon container of gas on him.
Click to expand...

So which is it? There is a significant difference between the two behaviors.

The first implies an open container for fast ejection of the liquid. The second implies Vogler sat still while someone slowly poured gas out.

And, if it is true he "forced his wat into the magazine's office" then it would imply people DID see him with the container and attempted to stop him, or there was no one to witness it and the "forcing" was through closed doors.

Either way.... another shitty article that doesn't really inform people of much of anything.
 
gun_slinger_boy

gun_slinger_boy

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,489
Reaction score
7,260
Location
Pennsyltucky
Grimscale said:
So which is it? There is a significant difference between the two behaviors.

The first implies an open container for fast ejection of the liquid. The second implies Vogler sat still while someone slowly poured gas out.

And, if it is true he "forced his wat into the magazine's office" then it would imply people DID see him with the container and attempted to stop him, or there was no one to witness it and the "forcing" was through closed doors.

Either way.... another shitty article that doesn't really inform people of much of anything.
Click to expand...
Sensationalism is the key. And why I hate reading the news anymore. Being that the dude survived, I'm going to guess that not all 5 gallons were used to soak him head to toe. I assume it was a quick pour of a small amount. Enough to give the attacker the time to also ignite. From behind or a blind spot, after the initial pour, someone's reaction would most likely be what the hell! Before they realize what happened, boom, they're on fire.

Just like the other thread with the "White" people being attacked by a mob, key words are put into headlines and articles to sensationalize the story and get views. "White" and "five gallons" is information not at all needed to convey the story. Notice in the article the words five gallon are in quotes as well. Does it mean the amount wasn't confirmed or that not all 5 gallons were used? A cup of gasoline isn't as exciting is it. 1754051971664.png
 
spat

spat

.950 JDJ
Messages
30,005
Reaction score
63,296
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Grimscale said:
So which is it? There is a significant difference between the two behaviors.

The first implies an open container for fast ejection of the liquid. The second implies Vogler sat still while someone slowly poured gas out.

And, if it is true he "forced his wat into the magazine's office" then it would imply people DID see him with the container and attempted to stop him, or there was no one to witness it and the "forcing" was through closed doors.

Either way.... another shitty article that doesn't really inform people of much of anything.
Click to expand...
A 5 gallon pail could be a container of gasoline.

It can also be dumped on someone very quickly.

Especially if you had a lid on it for transport, then loosened it before actually going into the office.
 
spat

spat

.950 JDJ
Messages
30,005
Reaction score
63,296
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
gun_slinger_boy said:
Sensationalism is the key. And why I hate reading the news anymore. Being that the dude survived, I'm going to guess that not all 5 gallons were used to soak him head to toe. I assume it was a quick pour of a small amount. Enough to give the attacker the time to also ignite. From behind or a blind spot, after the initial pour, someone's reaction would most likely be what the hell! Before they realize what happened, boom, they're on fire.

Just like the other thread with the "White" people being attacked by a mob, key words are put into headlines and articles to sensationalize the story and get views. "White" and "five gallons" is information not at all needed to convey the story. Notice in the article the words five gallon are in quotes as well. Does it mean the amount wasn't confirmed or that not all 5 gallons were used? A cup of gasoline isn't as exciting is it. View attachment 270670
Click to expand...
Wouldn't matter if he was doused with 1 gallon or 5. Much less than a gallon would soak into his clothes, the rest would form a puddle on the floor that I presume he would very quickly exit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top