By Guy Page
A Hancock man has pleaded innocent by reason of self defense after being charged with second-degree murder in connection with the Feb. 8 fatal shooting of a Rochester man.
Tanner Leary, 23, turned himself in Tuesday morning, Feb. 17, at the state police barracks in New Haven. He was taken into custody and arraigned later that day in the Criminal Division of Vermont Superior Court in Middlebury.
Leary pleaded not guilty. During court proceedings, Leary reportedly told authorities that Howard Doyle had poured gasoline around his home, prompting the shooting.
Judge Alison Arms ordered Leary held on $100,000 bail. The court also imposed conditions of release requiring that he remain under the supervision of a responsible adult, observe a 24-hour curfew at his residence, have no contact with Doyle’s family, and not possess any firearms or dangerous weapons.
The investigation began at about 10:30 a.m. Feb. 8, when troopers responded to a report of an altercation at a property on Bettis Road in Hancock. First responders found Doyle dead inside a vehicle near the scene.
An autopsy conducted at the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office in Burlington determined Doyle died from multiple gunshot wounds. Doyle was the father of a family member in a relationship with Leary.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Court
IF this claim of “imminent arson of an occupied dwelling” is valid, I believe that Vermont law allows for the use of deadly force in such cases. Was he expected to shoot the zippo out of the perpetrators hand? Thanks, Guy for not referring to the deceased as the “victim”, as was the case with some other local reports. Sloppy liberal journalists tend to refer to anyone who is shot as the “victim”, regardless of what illegal or threatening activity they may have been engaged in and whether there was legal justification. It may be proper and accurate to refer to Doyle as a “shooting victim”, but simple use of the word “victim” leads to inaccurate conclusions, until the facts are in.
As you say, IF the claim of defense is accurate, the ‘victim’ the press is exemplifying is actually the criminal, and the accused is actually the ‘victim’ defending himself
Now, why would a person pour gas around another persons house????? Can we have the rest of the story.