Break-In Backfires—Now Burglar Wants Millions

A Portland man with a long record of burglaries is asking a jury to award him $10 million after the business owner he was robbing shot him three times.

Quick Take

Kenneth Voyles filed a $10 million civil lawsuit against Touchstone Granite & Marble and owner James Grant after being shot during a break-in.
Court records show Voyles has past convictions tied to burglary and car theft.
Grant testified he fired in self-defense after warning Voyles to get on the ground.
Grant’s attorney says Voyles threatened him with raised bolt cutters before the shooting.
The case highlights Oregon’s murky legal line between business and home self-defense protections.

Lawsuit Seeks Millions Over Break-In Shooting

Kenneth Voyles filed suit on May 6, 2026, in Multnomah County against Touchstone Granite & Marble Inc. and owner James Grant. The complaint claims battery, assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Voyles wants $5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, arguing Grant’s response to the break-in went far beyond what the law allows.

Voyles broke into the Portland granite and marble shop and was confronted by Grant, who was working in a back room at the time. According to court testimony, Grant threw a cup of urine at Voyles and threw heavy tiles toward him before leaving briefly to grab a gun from under his pillow. He then returned and shot Voyles three times in the arm and torso as Voyles tried to escape, according to the lawsuit.

Owner Says He Feared for His Life

Grant testified on August 12, 2026, that he fired to protect himself, not to kill Voyles. He said he repeatedly told Voyles to get on the ground, but Voyles refused and looked ready to attack. “My adrenaline was flowing, to just protect myself,” Grant said. “I didn’t want to do deadly force”. Grant’s attorney, Stephanie Schilling, said her client had every right to defend himself against “a stranger in the dark” who threatened him with raised bolt cutters.

Public records show Voyles has a lengthy criminal history, including burglary charges and more than a year in prison for a string of car thefts, according to reporting on the case. That record fuels public frustration over a system many feel lets repeat offenders shift blame onto victims who defend their own property, even as the case still hinges on facts a jury has not yet decided.

Oregon’s Self-Defense Law Puts Business Owners in a Gray Zone

Oregon law lets people use physical force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe someone is about to commit a violent felony or use unlawful force against them. But the state’s strongest protections typically apply to a “dwelling,” not a business, which is part of what makes this case legally tricky. Unlike Colorado’s “make my day” law, Oregon has no blanket shield from civil liability for shooting an intruder on commercial property.

🚨 PORTLAND HAS APPARENTLY REACHED THE “BURGLAR SUES THE VICTIM FOR $10 MILLION” STAGE OF CIVILIZATION

A man admits he broke into a Portland business around 5:30 in the morning.

The owner was living inside the building.

According to the owner, the intruder raised a large pair… pic.twitter.com/1uNjcl10hF

— The Undercurrent (@NotTheirScript) August 14, 2026

This isn’t the first time an injured intruder has sued the person who shot them. A Deschutes County homeowner faced a similar wrongful death suit years earlier despite facing no criminal charges. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that at least 23 states shield self-defenders from civil suits entirely, while at least six states allow such suits to proceed regardless. Oregon isn’t in that fully protective group, leaving cases like Voyles’ open to a jury’s judgment on force and necessity.

The lawsuit is pending in Multnomah County Circuit Court, where a jury will ultimately decide whether Grant’s actions crossed the line from self-defense into excessive force. For many Americans watching this story, the case taps into a deeper frustration: a legal system that seems to let criminals sue their victims, forcing small business owners to defend themselves twice — once from the intruder, and again in court.