On Monday of this week I wrote about a bizarre civil suit that had gone to trial in Portland, Oregon involving a convicted burglar and the owner of the business he broke into, who shot the man in self-defense.
Kenneth Voyles was seeking $10 million from John Grant, the owner of Touchstone Granite & Marble, claiming the business owner had inflicted emotional and physical damage to him without any justification. As I wrote at the time:
Portland's reputation as a far-left haven for progressives is well-deserved, but there are also a lot of residents who are fed up with the crime and lawlessness that have almost been institutionalized by local politicians. Voyles has already been convicted for his actions that day, and I'd be somewhat surprised if the jury in his civil suit ends up siding with him over the business owner who acted in self-defense.
Grant wasn't charged in the incident, but Voyles, who was shot in the arm, was ultimately sentenced to five years of drug treatment. He was also sentenced to more than a year in prison for an unrelated string of car break-ins.
Voyles's attorney tried to argue that when Grant momentarily left Voyles alone so he could get his gun, he could have simply retreated into a locked room. Grant's attorney pushed back on that, asserting that her client was well within his rights to try to hold Voyles for police, and only shot when he believed that his life was in danger.
Well, the jury's verdict is now in, and Voyles won't be getting any money from the armed citizen he sued.
A Portland jury took only a few hours Tuesday to reject a man’s $10 million ask after he burglarized a stone countertop business while homeless and nearly lost his life when the owner shot him three times.
The jury sided 10-2 with business owner James Grant, refusing to rule that Grant opening fire on burglar Kenneth Voyles was unjustified. The jury also found that Voyles’ decision to pry a board off the building, cut metal bars and wiggle through an old doggie door to get inside was a “substantial factor” that contributed to his wounds.
It's nice to see there's still some common sense left in Portland, though I'd love to ask a few questions of the two jurors who actually thought that Voyles deserved a payout from the business owner after breaking into his shop.
The police investigation led to charges against Voyles, but Grant was never arrested and didn't face prosecution for his actions. The business owner claimed that he intended on holding Voyles at gunpoint for police, but shot the intruder when he raised a pair of bolt cutters over his head and moved towards Grant.
The 70-year-old armed citizen had seen his business burgled multiple times in the past, and police had never physically responded to any of the prior break-ins. Grant thought that if he was holding someone at gunpoint he might actually see some law enforcement, and I suspect he would have been right even if he hadn't shot Voyles before police had a chance to respond.
Even though Grant won't have to pay any damages to Voyles, he's still responsible for his attorneys fees, so this junk lawsuit comes with a price. Voyles' complaint should have been dismissed long ago, but this is Portland we're talking about, so I suppose we should just be happy that 10 out of 12 jurors sided with the business owner over the guy who broke into his store.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Bearing Arms's pro-Second Amendment reporting that covers defensive gun uses like this one? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member