An 80-year-old homeowner has been ordered to pay $2 million in a civil wrongful death judgment after fatally shooting a pregnant woman who unlawfully entered his home, a ruling that has reignited debate over self-defense laws, use of force, and civil liability.
The shooting occurred two years ago at the man’s rural residence on the outskirts of the county. According to court records, the woman, 27 years old and several months pregnant, entered the home late at night through an unlocked back door. Prosecutors said she was under the influence of drugs and appeared disoriented.
The homeowner told police he believed the intruder posed an immediate threat to his safety. He fired a single shot, killing the woman. Emergency responders pronounced her dead at the scene. Her unborn child did not survive.
A grand jury later declined to file criminal charges, concluding that the man acted within the state’s self-defense statutes, which allow homeowners to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they face imminent danger inside their residence.
However, the woman’s family pursued a civil lawsuit, arguing that the shooting was unnecessary and that the intruder was unarmed and not behaving violently at the time she was shot.
On Friday, a civil jury sided with the family, finding the homeowner liable for wrongful death and awarding $2 million in damages. Jurors determined that while the man may have feared for his safety, his response was not reasonable under the circumstances.
“This verdict recognizes that the loss of life — including that of an unborn child — demands accountability,” said family attorney Melissa Grant following the decision. “Self-defense has limits, and those limits were crossed.”
Attorneys for the homeowner expressed disappointment with the ruling and said they plan to appeal.
“This was an elderly man, alone in his home at night, confronted by an unknown intruder,” defense attorney Robert Hale said. “The jury’s decision places an unrealistic burden on vulnerable homeowners to assess intent in seconds during moments of fear.”
Legal analysts note that the case underscores the difference between criminal and civil standards. While criminal courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases rely on a lower burden of proof, allowing juries to weigh factors such as proportionality and alternative actions.
Community reaction has been divided. Some residents argue the verdict unfairly punishes a senior citizen who acted to protect himself.
“If someone breaks into your house, you shouldn’t have to risk your life guessing their intentions,” said neighbor Thomas Reed.
Others say the ruling reflects the seriousness of using deadly force, even during a crime.
“A person can be trespassing and still not deserve to die,” said community advocate Lena Morris. “This case is tragic on every level.”
Court documents revealed that the woman had struggled with substance abuse and was not known to the homeowner. Her family described her as someone who had been trying to turn her life around before her death.
The homeowner, who did not testify during the civil trial, released a brief statement through his attorney saying he remains “deeply affected” by the incident.
“I never wanted this to happen,” the statement read. “I feared for my life.”
The case is expected to influence future civil claims involving self-defense, particularly those involving elderly defendants and unarmed intruders. Legal experts say it may encourage homeowners to reconsider how courts evaluate reasonableness after a threat has passed.
As the appeal process begins, the ruling stands as a reminder that even when criminal charges are not filed, civil courts can still impose significant consequences in cases involving the use of deadly force.