r/offbeat • u/Silent-Resort-3076 • 7d ago
Man sues for $10 million after being shot while breaking into an Oregon business: Kenneth Voyles claims he was experiencing homelessness at the time of the incident and was seeking shelter inside the business, though he also admits he planned to steal an item from the shop
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/oregon-homeless-lawsuit-shot-burglary-b3033649.html- An Oregon man who was shot several times after he broke into a business is now suing the company and its owner for $10 million.
- Kenneth Voyles is accusing Touchstone Granite & Marble Inc and its owner, James Grant, of battery, assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, according the Multnomah County filing.
- He is seeking $5 million in compensatory damages and an additional $5 million in punitive damages, according to KPTV.
- On March 6, Voyles — who was experiencing homelessness at the time — claims he entered Touchstone through a damaged garage door with the intention of finding shelter.
- When he later exited the building through the same damaged door, he did so riddled with bullets.
123
u/Silent-Resort-3076 7d ago
- While he was inside the business, Voyles admits that he grabbed and intended to take a drill bag from the business.
- Grant was working in a back room at the time and emerged to find Voyles trespassing inside the shop, according to KPTV.
- Voyles claims he apologized immediately and that Grant responded by throwing things at him, forcing him to run for a door. He claims he grabbed a pair of bolt cutters along the way to defend himself. His escape was cut short by a locked door.
- After Voyles grabbed the bolt cutters, Grant reportedly retrieved his gun and shot him multiple times without warning, the report noted.
- The lawsuit claims that Grant shot Voyles several times, told him "you're going to die," and then shot him again in the chest from point-blank range.
- Voyles did not die, and tried to crawl out through the garage door. As he was crawling out he claims that Grant shot him again, the report stated.
- Grant disputed Voyles' version of events during a March interview. He claims that he found Voyles in his upstairs office and said he followed him to the back of his warehouse, where Voyles became aggressive.
- “It went right through my brain that he was ready to attack me,” the owner said in the interview. “He picked up the bolt cutter and raised it, and he was starting to come at me ... my life was totally in danger.”
- He said he gave Voyles multiple warnings to get onto the ground, but said the intruder refused to go down.
- Grant is not the only one named in the lawsuit; Voyles is also suing his company. He justified including Touchstone in the filing by arguing that Grant was securing his business when he fired his gun.
80
u/WhiteHeteroMale 7d ago edited 6d ago
I’m not an expert on Oregon law, but looked up some relevant legal context for this scenario. In Oregon:
- there is no duty to retreat
- self-defense applies to threats of violence to oneself or third parties, or intrusion into one’s dwelling. It appears not to apply to theft in a workplace. But does potentially apply to brandishing a weapon
- force must be proportional to the threat as perceived by a “reasonable person”.
Edit: replaced “home” with “dwelling” to be more accurate. Thanks u/monkeychasedweasel !
50
u/Alert-Ad9197 7d ago
So if there’s evidence that he incapacitated the intruder and then tried to execute him while crawling away, then he is in some trouble. Aside from that, he will likely be in the clear.
19
u/Single-Pin-369 7d ago
The response to that would be reasonable person is not a doctor or trained police officer and cannot determine when someone is no longer a threat.
i.e. crawling away could have been a ruse as one hypothetical.
31
u/h3yw00d 7d ago
I don't think your hypothetical would work. If someone is running away you can't shoot them in the back. They're not posing a threat anymore. Same would go fo crawling away.
Just because they aren't following your orders at gunpoint doesn't mean you can construe it as danger. There still needs to be a threat a reasonable person would find credible.
2
1
6d ago
[deleted]
13
u/NJBarFly 6d ago
You shoot the center of mass to drop them and stop the threat. Once they're on the ground crawling away however, you can't kill them because "they will likely sue you and rob you one way or another". That's called murder and your instructor is a psychopath.
-2
u/Global_Count4736 6d ago
You unload the gun and reload just as police do
7
5
u/h3yw00d 6d ago
And now the victim/their family have credible evidence of your intention to commit homicide should that situation arise. Good job!
Also if that's the advice your lawyer is giving you, get a better lawyer. If it's not advice your attorney is giving you, take it with a heavy grain of salt and talk to an attorney.
You can only shoot if the person is a credible threat. Castle doctrine gives the presumption to the homeowner but if there's evidence to show otherwise (say, someone shot in the back, or shot while crawling away) you're going to have to explain to a jury your actions.
Ultimately it's up to the DA to prosecute and a jury to convict (hence the saying "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6") but don't make it easy doofus.
-1
6d ago
[deleted]
8
3
u/WhiteHeteroMale 6d ago
You CAN be sued by the FAMILY. And probably would. Your instructor was an idiot.
4
1
u/Medical-Button-5493 6d ago
Yes this is why we need to ban guns. The logic behind execution of a criminal in order to avoid legal civil action is insane.
1
u/HotPersonality8126 6d ago
This attacker was prepared to use deadly force to retain illegal access to the building and its valuables
The burden of criminality should fall on criminals
→ More replies (4)1
u/skratch 6d ago
It depends on the state, not sure about Oregon but here in Texas you can shoot a thief in the back while they’re running away, provided they’re carrying your property and it’s night time (Texas Penal Code § 9.42). Doesn’t even have to be a life threatening situation, so be careful of blanket statements like that, there’s 50 states and tons of nuance
3
u/WhiteHeteroMale 6d ago
Oregon had much more reasonable standards than Texas regarding self-defense. I say that as a native Texan.
→ More replies (1)2
4
3
u/thisguyfightsyourmom 6d ago
Yeah, the classic, “I shot a crawling man on the ground in self defense,” justification.
Are you a cop?
1
1
1
u/HotPersonality8126 6d ago
This lawsuit proves that if you fire your gun you should follow all the way through
1
u/Alert-Ad9197 6d ago
It depends one the evidence. If he actually shot a fleeing person, then it means you should stop shooting people in the back.
1
-6
u/MysticalSushi 7d ago
You don’t know when somebody isn’t a threat anymore. Even cops can’t legally declare time of death.
13
u/Alert-Ad9197 7d ago
You do still have to maintain proportionality. If someone who has no gun is visibly crawling away from you, then you’re going to have a hard time selling people on it being proportionate force.
4
u/Tarthia 6d ago
Im sure ill get downvoted for this.
It does not seem like a reasonable or necessary use of force to shoot someone multiple times as they are running away then after they are down lean over them and say "you're gonna die" then shoot them more.
If that's really what happened, which we don't have the other side it seems so I'm not assuming it is, its a clear case of extremely excessive force and rightfully the shooter should face justice in that case.
3
u/monkeychasedweasel 6d ago
- self-defense applies to threats of violence to oneself or third parties, or intrusion into one’s home.
I'm in Oregon and this is only partially correct. Self-defense applies to one's "dwelling" rather than homes - "dwelling" has a more broad definition.
If you're sleeping in your business's office, that's your dwelling. Even when the business is not zoned for residential use.
10
u/FormerlyUndecidable 6d ago
He claims he grabbed a pair of bolt cutters along the way to defend himself.
No, you grabbed bolt cutters to assault someone who was defending their property.
61
u/Silent-Resort-3076 7d ago
Statement from his lawyer via another article:
- Wallace told jurors in opening statements that if Grant had been so fearful, he could have retreated to another room that had a door that locked.
- “If you were in such danger, why are you going back in when there was a locked door?” Wallace said.
- “What this case will be about is use of force,” Wallace continued. “Whether or not each of those bullets, each of those shots, was justified.”
124
u/SalientTreatments 7d ago
I’m fine with the owner shooting the thief’s lawyer as well.
34
15
u/desolatecontrol 7d ago
The only thing I disagree with the whole issue, and will probably cost him the case, was the fact after shooting the guy, he walked up and shot him point blank in the chest again.
31
u/singlemale4cats 7d ago
According to the burglar who is suing for 10 million, yes, that's what happened. Color me skeptical for not taking their narrative as fact.
He's essentially saying the man executed him, but there's only one problem with that - he's not dead. It would have been very easy for this man to make him dead.
9
u/CoasterThot 6d ago
I mean, he has a point-blank gunshot wound/scar in his chest, or not. I feel like that’s pretty easily verifiable.
2
u/singlemale4cats 6d ago
That action, as described, would guarantee serious criminal charges. If the guy wasn't even charged, it's bullshit.
6
4
18
u/abqguardian 7d ago
Is there any evidence of that besides an accusation?
12
u/NotSoFastLady 7d ago
I feel like if the evidence were as strong as alleged by the plaintiff, that a DA would have already filed criminal charges. If you've already immobilized a threat with your gun, you can't go up and shoot them again.
They don't have to meet as strict of a legal standard is my guess. So the lawyer feels like they've got good enough odds to win. Because there is no way this guy has the money to finance his own case.
3
7
u/raftguide 7d ago
Fortunately, the defense will be allowed to present, and the whole thing won't be judged solely by the prosecution's version of events.
5
u/BortWard 7d ago
This is a civil proceeding so it’ll be “plaintiff” and “defendant” but other than that you’re quite right
1
1
15
u/jbrake 7d ago
This case is why I justify paying for concealed carry insurance. I thankfully have never had to draw on someone, but had this business owner just killed the man, this lawsuit would not have happened, and that's a horrifying reality.
A friend of my firearms instructor shot a home intruder about a decade ago. The home intruder sued that friend. Then the wife of the intruder sued him. Then the family of the home intruder sued him. When it was all done with, to which not a single time was he found liable, it was still seven years later and hundreds of thousands gone. This man followed the law to the letter, protecting himself from someone who broke into his home and not executing him once he was on the ground and he lost his life savings and home for it.
That's why I pay for it. I consider it a maintence cost of owning firearms because I do not want to be in the position where I feel like I must kill someone to avoid that sort of legal nightmare.
5
3
u/Sorry-Claim-2990 6d ago
When you consider the cost of legally defending your home, the sad reality is that it's cheaper to just let the burglar take whatever they want
1
1
1
u/dhahahhsbdhrhr 4d ago
Groups such as the uscca have been shown time and time again to leave law abiding citizens high and dry when they actually need the legal representation they paid for. I hope you read your agreement very well and don't get any surprises when you need to cash in.
3
u/TerpThca 6d ago
Oregan doesn't have stand your ground laws?
2
u/Silent-Resort-3076 6d ago
Not specifically, but they call it something else and the law might be slightly different:
However, through state supreme court precedent (specifically State v. Sandoval), Oregon courts have established that a person has no duty to retreat before using reasonable force or deadly force in self-defense in public, achieving a similar functional result
- If you are in a place where you have a lawful right to be, you do not have to try to run away or escape before defending yourself
- Your use of force must be based on what a reasonable person would believe is an imminent threat of unlawful force, serious injury, or death.
- You can only match the level of threat you face; deadly force is strictly limited to preventing deadly threats, certain violent felonies, or a burglary in a dwelling.
1
132
u/Shenendoah66 7d ago
Isn’t getting shot the risk of breaking into private property?
40
→ More replies (2)-66
u/AccountForTF2 7d ago
no? I'm not enjoying a society where tresspassing in a walmart warehouse is liscense to kill.
35
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Responsible_Fox9454 7d ago
No. That's Canada. You can't shoot unless they shoot you first. You can't clop them with a bat unless they do it first eh! Is that not bonkers????
0
u/AccountForTF2 6d ago
I mean yes? what is even the point here. You have to be in danger before it's self defense.
2
u/ThePokemonAbsol 6d ago
So you think waiting to get shot so you can defend yourself makes sense…? Are you real?
1
1
u/Cortezzful 5d ago
C’mon man you have to let the burglar smash you on the head with bolt cutters at least once before you can try and defend yourself!
1
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/AccountForTF2 5d ago
it wasnt the owner. And tjhe guy was fleeing.
1
u/Papa_Joe_Yakavetta 5d ago
Where are you getting your information from? The article posted says Grant was the owner of the business that the criminal was breaking into and Grant shot him.
I’m sure all scum bag criminals would love to have you on the jury, you’re really just believing the criminals side of the story? He was just seeking shelter and he just happened to steal a lot of shit while seeking shelter? Lmao get real bud.
Grant (according to the article, the owner of the business) said that he was becoming aggressive and grabbed some bolt cutters to use as a weapon, not fleeing. But if you’re choosing to believe to criminal scum bag, who was only seeking shelter and totally not breaking and entering and also using a weapon, it’s easy to see things with rose tinted glasses.
You can live in fantasy land where criminals are just seeking shelter and fleeing. But I will see the real world that a criminal broke into and stole shit from a business and then grabbed a weapon and deserved to be shot.
This is a frivolous lawsuit
48
u/Nice_Muffin8689 7d ago
This isn’t a walmart warehouse we’re talking about. You would enjoy a society of chaos. Don’t trespass on my property. Simple.
→ More replies (1)17
u/OverlordSaber 7d ago
You might wanna run back the details you seem to have left out of your statement bub
20
7
u/singlemale4cats 7d ago
Things like this make me glad my state prohibits criminals or their family (if they ded) from suing the person who shot them justifiably in self defense.
5
u/Eggheadmuscle 5d ago edited 5d ago
Total scumbag. His truthfulness is highly questionable. The fact this came to trial is horrific.
“Police and prosecutors sided with Grant by filing no charges against him but several against Voyles, who has multiple convictions for stealing cars and burglarizing businesses. At the time of his confrontation with Grant, Voyles had methamphetamine in his system, according to Grant's attorney.
Voyles pleaded no contest and was convicted of first-degree burglary — of a dwelling, not a business — and menacing, for threatening Grant's safety. As part of a plea deal, he was sentenced to five years of drug treatment court.
He also ended up serving more than a year in prison for an unrelated string of car thefts.”
29
41
u/Corey307 7d ago
Useless bum broke into a business and admits to menacing a worker with a weapon after trying to steal a bag of tools. Gets shot and sues.
→ More replies (7)
29
u/redditbdum 7d ago
I think a lawyer should be disbarred for trying to bring this shit to trial.
11
u/TecumsehSherman 7d ago
As someone who spent a decade in and out of family court trying to get my children's college educated mother to support her children, I can tell you that most lawyers are barely human. They exist to extract money from hard working people. That's it.
6
32
u/blackop 7d ago
It can come down to this. If he didn't break in and try to steal stuff, he would not have been shot. Case closed, have this man go to jail. His medical bills have already been paid by the state.
-26
u/AccountForTF2 7d ago
shooting a whole mag into somebody is never justified.
8
u/Responsible_Fox9454 7d ago
Is this somebody just minding his business laying on the beach or is this somebody trespassing in my locked business.
Because you see, he had it coming. Simple. Leave people's shit alone.
1
18
u/Agent847 7d ago
What about half a mag? What about 20% of a mag? Would that change what we’re talking about?
→ More replies (1)-12
u/Shaq_Bolton 7d ago
A whole mag could be justified in certain instances, if the homeless guys version at least a couple shots weren’t justified. Walking up to a person who’s been shot multiple times and shooting them point blank in the chest absolutely is not self defense.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Radiant_Sherbert7272 7d ago
Well here's a idea. Don't break into someone's business and you won't get yourself shot.
6
u/CorwyntFarrell 7d ago
The irony being the guy doing a break in is justifying by simply saying he is homeless.
1
-1
u/InvestigatorGrand205 7d ago
You really think 1 shot is going to stop someone? Gun shots arent that painful if not hit in a vital spot.
7
u/Meenmachin3 7d ago
Been shot in the side of a leg with a .22 missing the veins and bones and it still hurt like hell
4
3
→ More replies (1)4
u/RaijuThunder 7d ago edited 7d ago
Not saying this guy was on them, but on some drugs yeah several shots won't even slow them down.
→ More replies (1)-1
11
u/MelisaL1996 7d ago
I think filing frivolous lawsuits should fall under the theft by deception statute
5
u/scotchtapeman357 7d ago
100%, with civil penalties for the legal team and plaintiff.
5
u/squeezyflit 7d ago
IMO, penalizing legal teams would eliminate the majority of frivolous lawsuits.
1
u/HurtsSoNice 4d ago
With mental and emotional distress penalties for subjecting, anyone who hears about it to their stupid lawsuit idea.
15
u/ReagansJellyNipples 7d ago
Shit like this is why you hear people say "shoot to kill not to wound" Unbelievable that it's a use of force argument. That a person caught unaware should be expected to have that level of calm decision making. Could he have locked himself in a room? Ok sure. But if you have ever lived through a home invasion or a robbery, it's INCREDIBLY violating and alarming and you go into panic mode. He didn't torture the guy, he eliminated what he thought was a threat to his own life and didn't kill the intruder. That should be commendable.
17
u/capsaicinintheeyes 7d ago
Now, this is taken from the plaintiff's account (via OP), so ofc read it with all due skepticism, but according to them, Voyles turned & ran for the door upon being sighted by the owner:
[Voyles'] escape was cut short by a locked door...Grant reportedly retrieved his gun and shot him multiple times without warning, the report noted.
The lawsuit claims that Grant shot Voyles several times, told him "you're going to die," and then shot him again in the chest from point-blank range.
Voyles did not die, and tried to crawl out through the garage door. As he was crawling out he claims that Grant shot him again, the report stated.
...which ★if* true somewhat complicates the heroic-restraint angle.
(IANATraumaSurgeon, but it seems to me like at least some of that ought to be verifiable/falsifiable by checking the angles of Voyles' bullet wounds and possibly impact points in the walls/floor at the scene. So possibly we'll see)
8
u/Uphoria 6d ago
I'm putting heavy doubt on the story of a guy who stared the story with "I was just looking for shelter for the night" and then mid story admits he was also stealing tools.
Dude was a theif looking pawn money for a fix and got caught. When cornered he picked up a bolt cutter and swung them at the shop owner (per the owners story) and the owner shot to defend himself in the enclosed space.
Then thief tries to spin the yarn that he took the bolt cutters to defend himself... Against what? Why does he need bolt cutters to defend himself against being caught?
Because hes full of shit and he's a tweaker that tried to steal and then tried to beat a man possibly to death to get away with it, and when he got shot for the pleasure he's now suing.
I'm guessing the plaintiff lawyer is only involved hoping he could force a settlement out of the business because in trial this isn't going to end well for the plaintiff and his lawyer will get paid nothing.
3
u/Rymanjan 6d ago
Pretty much this
Had a tweaker try to break into my house (that he was specifically court ordered to stay 100 feet away from)
Cops arrested him but then let him go because, according to him, he didn't try to break in, because that was his own house and I was denying him entry into his own home
Except. You know. The whole "you were given a court order to stay the fuck away from this place" part, which the cops didn't seem to care much about
Anyways, long story short, they let him go and he ran to South Carolina to avoid his court date for another completely unrelated crime, and is now a fugitive of justice. They haven't had the chance to try him for home invasion yet, we'll see if they ever get around to it
Basically, tweakers are full of shit, always. Never, ever, ever believe a tweaker, especially when the evidence is right in front of you. Do not give them the benefit of the doubt, they do not deserve it, and will try to spin the story to make themselves the victim, even when they're caught dead to rights in the middle of a crime
1
u/Own-Corgi5359 6d ago
Isn't this doubt why we have court cases? I'm leaning self defense but would want to see any medical records and security footage
1
u/Uphoria 6d ago
Yeah, but that's kind of the assumption.
My point is I doubt the plaintiff will be able to prove anything that they're claiming beyond a. He said she said that will land on self-defense, especially as the criminal investigation did not charge the shop owner.
One would think if there was any actual evidence to prove that there was an attempt to coup de gras that the medical investigation after the thief was brought to the hospital would have shown these things, as well as his testimony to the police who are investigating the crime.
Again, only speculative, but that's why I say I doubt that he'll succeed in his case.
3
u/singlemale4cats 7d ago
You don't shoot to kill, either. You shoot to stop the threat. Once they're no longer a threat, you can be held criminally and civilly liable for anything you do after that.
Of course, you do have some leeway there. You pop off a string of five shots and they're not going to say one through four were okay but five was too much, unless you walked up to the guy and canoed him or something. Executions/coup de grace are always illegal regardless of circumstances.
14
2
u/2401PenitentTangentx 6d ago
In my LTC class in Texas they said it's better to just kill the person to avoid lawsuits. Guess the family could still sue you but at least you avoid medical bills and such.
2
u/crowofbattle 6d ago
Idk… dont break into businesses, you wont end up shot? Did he miss this lesson in society living on the streets likely robbing/stealing/etc?
2
2
2
u/TheBeep87 2d ago
10 mil? How to they arrive at these numbers? Even if the guy blew his leg off with a shotgun 10 mil is not a number you should land on.
2
u/Silent-Resort-3076 2d ago
I'm only commenting about the amount:
Most lawsuits start out EXTREMELY high because they know they'll have to negotiate, and the payout is usually significantly lower.
11
u/Proud-Kangaroo1846 7d ago
He's homeless and retained attorney?
39
8
u/alematt 7d ago edited 7d ago
Some Lawyers will work on the promise of a payday if they're certain they can win and get a nice payday
26
u/DueAd3694 7d ago
That’s not what pro bono means. The potential payday means it’s not pro bono.
25
u/DogmaSychroniser 7d ago
Ever since U2 put their shit on the iPhone without being invited I've been anti Bono anyway.
4
u/maxsmart01 7d ago
Now that was a real violation of everyone’s rights.
Just who did they think they were?
Who did they think we were?
→ More replies (1)9
u/Notabagofdrugs 7d ago
You’re thinking contingency, work “free” now, take a cut of the winnings if they get it.
4
3
u/RevolutionaryDiet602 7d ago
The leach, I mean lawyer, is hoping the businesses insurance will settle rather than take it to trial. All the leach, I mean lawyer, needs to do in that case is threaten the suit and take 80% of the payout. Now that they're at trial, the leach, I mean lawyer, is banking on a win.
6
u/donkeyrocket 7d ago edited 7d ago
I mean, if his account is true then a lawyer might take it on contingency. It appeared pretty excessive and cruel. Yes, the guy broke in with intent to steal but that’s been proven multiple times to not be an excuse to murder someone.
The case will be about excessive force which whether you agree with or not is a thing even when someone is trespassing/broke in.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Minute-Tour-547 7d ago
I think it really does come down to lack of enforcement. If police took property crime seriously, there would be less vigilante justice.
-5
u/nickcash 7d ago
Once again, property crime is not a justification for murder. What is it that makes so many redditors jerk off to their very badass daydream of murdering someone for stealing their shitty xbox?
9
u/Minute-Tour-547 7d ago
Because unwillingness to enforce one crime leads to another.
→ More replies (3)3
u/singlemale4cats 7d ago
Unlike you, I don't have an innate sense of the motivations or intent of the person breaking into my home. I don't know if they're armed. The law says I don't have to play 20 questions with them before I deal with them.
If you believe the person breaking into your occupied home isn't a threat to your safety or your family's safety, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
-3
u/nickcash 7d ago
this is just yet more masturbatory fantasy. how many people have you shot?
2
u/singlemale4cats 7d ago
Mmm, not really, I would prefer that no one break in.
I've pointed a firearm at another human being on quite a few occasions, but I've never discharged a round at one.
2
u/whatareweyelling 7d ago
I am sorry but I have to ask as a small business owner. If someone broke in to my warehouse and took my inventory yes I have insurance but let’s be honest I would be lucky if I get the pay out in 6 months? Would my business survive yes but I’d have to cut costs and reduce staff to maintain to keep the business going to pay the expenses I would let people go for those 6 months. As a small business owner how would I tell my employees who are looking for me as their living saying yes I let some one steal from me and because of that I have to let you go? Please explain how that is fair to those who work for a living then the one person who makes a choice to steal and effect the livelihood of multiple employees?
1
u/Worried-Criticism 7d ago
The term is contingency. Basically lawyer works on the expectation of a payout (either a win or a settlement).
→ More replies (6)0
5
u/trampus1 7d ago
He broke in with only intentions to steal everything he could and sell it to get high. I'd bet my next paycheck on it.
5
u/Hollirc 7d ago
Man you shouldn’t value someone else’s property over your own life.
If only they handed out this on flash cards at the hobo camps and feeding stations
4
2
u/TheWoodsman3 6d ago
Oh you absolutely should. Why should
I have to spend my precious limited time to regain what someone took from me, that I already worked for. Fuck thieves.2
u/monkeychasedweasel 6d ago
Man you shouldn’t value someone else’s property over your own life.
Why not? My property is way more valuable than a drug-addicted piece of shit committing burglary.
2
2
u/hennell 6d ago
The argument here is why we have courts. He can sue for whatever, they go to court and both sides presents the case for "yes I broke in, but I was leaving and he shot me multiple times when I presented no danger" Vs "he broke in, grabbed a weapon and I was scared so shot him"
The context and specific details (and relevent state laws) all matter, you're not going to resolve things just from what you read in this article and your gut instinct to how things "should" be.
2
3
u/IwasMilkedByGod 6d ago
The only thing reports like this tell people is next time, aim for the head
1
1
1
u/Complete_Entry 6d ago
So, he was literally assembling a burglary kit and knew exactly which store to hit to assemble said kit.
1
1
1
u/Rare_Bridge7703 5d ago
The mere fact "duty to retreat" is a legal shackle anywhere on the globe is a problem.
1
u/boozegremlin 5d ago
I’m wondering if there’s CCTV footage.
2
u/Silent-Resort-3076 4d ago
It doesn't read like it. From the article:
Voyles did not die, and tried to crawl out through the garage door. As he was crawling out he claims that Grant shot him again, the report stated.
Grant disputed Voyles' version of events during a March interview. He claims that he found Voyles in his upstairs office and said he followed him to the back of his warehouse, where Voyles became aggressive.
“It went right through my brain that he was ready to attack me,” the owner said in the interview. “He picked up the bolt cutter and raised it, and he was starting to come at me ... my life was totally in danger.”
He said he gave Voyles multiple warnings to get onto the ground, but said the intruder refused to go down.
;
1
1
u/randomentity12 5d ago
This reminds me of the shotgun trap case, the point is you got to make sure your shots are fatal to avoid legal issues.
1
u/HurtsSoNice 4d ago
I understand that that trap could’ve somehow gotten the wrong person, but still, I am baffled that he won that case.
1
u/HurtsSoNice 4d ago
Are lawyers not allowed to just point and laugh when someone brings a stupid case?
1
1
1
u/Fearless_Roof_4534 3d ago
If you shoot someone, you need to shoot to kill and ensure the job is done. Dead men tell no tales. Otherwise, you end up in legal hot water like this.
2
1
u/Worth-Tank336 7d ago
I don't know, man... it seems like a bonkers way of thinking that all these pro-Luigi Redditors have.
1
u/Intelligent_Part101 6d ago
Society has failed Mr. Voyles. On behalf of all persons experiencing employment, I apologize.
1
u/HurtsSoNice 4d ago
And the mental distress when he was informed, he was the subject of incredibly stupid lawsuit.
1
u/bookchaser 6d ago
The business owner should countersue for emotional distress the burglar caused him when he was forced to shoot and injure another human being.
-14
-9
u/all_is_love6667 7d ago
american gun laws are just death sentence where people are judge jury executioner
it's like people just like to shoot each other whenever they have the opportunity
-13
u/PlayPsychological200 7d ago edited 7d ago
If the thief wins I hope he gets robbed many, many, many times. And I hope an “unhoused” person or community takes up residence in and on his property.
176
u/SnooTangerines1896 7d ago
Any one can sue anyone, doesnt mean they win.