Councilman Lee Vogler severely burned over half his body after sadistic attack by maniac who wanted him dead: cops
The chilling attack — which police said was personal — left Danville City Councilman Lee Vogler with burns covering up to 60% of his body, mostly on his torso, Andrew Brooks, publisher of Showcase Magazine, the local outlet where the pol works and was set ablaze, told the New York Times Thursday.
The married father of two was expected to undergo surgery at a North Carolina hospital that he was airlifted to following the horrific attack Wednesday morning, Brooks said.
6 Danville City Councilman Lee Vogler suffered severe burns to more than half his body.
AP
Vogler's wife, Blair, said that her 'fighter' husband is healing.
'As anyone who knows him would expect, he is facing this challenge the same way he's faced every obstacle in his life — with courage, determination, and an unbreakable spirit. Lee is a fighter,' she said in a statement to Southside News Today.
6 Shotsie Michael Buck Hayes, 29, was arrested and charged in the targeted attack.
Danville VA Police Department
'Lee has dedicated over a decade of his life to serving the people of Danville. As his wife, I've stood beside him through the highs and lows, and I can attest to the integrity with which he serves. Beyond the headlines and the public comments, there is a man who deeply loves his family, city, and its people.'
Crazed assailant Shotsie Michael Buck Hayes, 29, allegedly admitted to police he doused the 38-year-old Republican lawmaker with five gallons of gasoline and set him on fire because 'it was his intention to kill' him, according to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC.
6 Vogler's boss at Showcase Magazine said a bystander helped pour water over him to extinguish the flames.
WSET
Hayes, a Danville resident, was charged with attempted first-degree murder and aggravated malicious wounding after he stormed into the offices of Showcase Magazine, drenched Vogler with the fuel, and then chased him outside before setting him on fire, according to the Danville Police Department.
Brooks said several bystanders recorded the terrifying assault, but a passing woman told a burning Vogler to drop to the ground and roll before grabbing bottles of water from her car to help extinguish the flames, the New York Times reported.
'She was a hero and likely saved his life while other people stood by filming it,' said the news publisher, who released an emotional video on Facebook shortly after Hayes allegedly 'forced his way' into their offices and targeted Vogler, the monthly magazine's director of sales.
6 Vogler suffered burns on up to 60% of his body, mostly on his torso.
Lee Vogler/Facebook
Brooks and Showcase Magazine did not immediately respond to The Post's requests for comment.
The alleged arsonist was captured shortly after fleeing the harrowing scene, while Danville's youngest-ever elected councilman identified his attacker and was rushed to a nearby burn unit in Lynchburg.
Police said Vogler, who was elected in 2012 at just 24, and Hayes know each other, adding the callous attack stemmed from a personal matter unrelated to the councilman's position or political affiliation.
6 Police said the attack was personal and not politically motivated.
AP
Court records show that Hayes' wife filed for divorce just over two weeks before carrying out the alleged attack, NBC reported. The pair wed in September 2023, according to their wedding website.
Hayes' wife and family could not immediately be reached.
Hayes was arraigned Thursday and is being held without bond at Danville City Jail.
6 Court records show that Hayes' wife filed for divorce just over two weeks before the alleged attack.
Mary Alice Buck-Hayes/Facebook
His lawyer, Edward Lavado, declined to comment on the case.
Hayes is due back in court on Sept. 30.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Officials scour mountainous area of Montana for ex-US soldier suspected of killing 4 in bar shooting
Authorities are scouring a mountainous area of western Montana for a military veteran who they say opened fire at a bar, killing four people. Michael Paul Brown, 45, fled The Owl Bar in the small town of Anaconda in a white pickup truck but ditched it at some point, said Lee Johnson, administrator of the Montana Division of Criminal Investigation, which is overseeing the case. He urged residents late Friday to stay at home and on high alert. 'While law enforcement has not received reports of Brown harming any other individuals, he is believed to be armed, and he is extremely dangerous,' Johnson said. Authorities said they would release the names of the victims once all of their families have been notified. 'This is a small tight-knit community that has been harmed by the heinous actions of one individual who does not represent what this community or Montanans stand for,' Johnson said. Anaconda, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of Butte, is hemmed in by mountains. The town of about 9,000 people, was founded by copper barons who profited off nearby mines in the late 1800s. A smelter stack that's no longer operational looms over the valley. Brown lived next door to The Owl Bar, said owner David Gwerder, who wasn't there during the shooting Friday morning. Gwerder told The Associated Press that the bartender and three patrons were killed and didn't think anyone else was inside. He also said he wasn't aware of any conflicts between Brown and any of the victims. 'He knew everybody that was in that bar. I guarantee you that,' Gwerder said. 'He didn't have any running dispute with any of them. I just think he snapped.' Brown served in the U.S. Army as an armor crewman from 2001 to 2005 and deployed to Iraq from early 2004 until March 2005, said Lt. Col. Ruth Castro, an Army spokesperson. Brown was in the Montana National Guard from 2006 to March 2009, Castro said. He left military service in the rank of sergeant. Brown's niece, Clare Boyle, told the AP on Friday that her uncle has struggled with mental illness for years and that she and her other family members repeatedly sought help. 'This isn't just a drunk/high man going wild,' she wrote in a Facebook message. 'It's a sick man who doesn't know who he is sometimes and frequently doesn't know where or when he is either.' With no sign of Brown in the white pickup or his home, authorities converged on the Stumptown Road area west of Anaconda by ground and air, locking it down so no one was allowed in or out. A helicopter hovered over a nearby mountainside as officers moved among the trees, said Randy Clark, a retired police officer who lives there. As reports of the shooting spread through town earlier Friday, business owners locked their doors and sheltered inside with customers. The owner of the Firefly Café in Anaconda said she locked up her business after a friend alerted her to the shooting. 'We are Montana, so guns are not new to us,' Barbie Nelson said. 'For our town to be locked down, everybody's pretty rattled.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms , many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
