The jury deliberated for a little more than an hour Tuesday before returning a verdict saying the Eugene police officer who shot and killed Brian Babb in 2015 was not in the wrong killing him.

The family of a man killed by a Eugene police officer in 2015 lost their civil lawsuit in a federal court Tuesday, their attorneys unable to convince a jury that an officer used excessive force when he shot and killed Brian Babb in his own doorway.

The jury deliberated for a little more than an hour Tuesday afternoon before returning to say they did not believe Eugene police officer Will Stutesman, who shot and killed Babb, acted outside the bounds of his training or prerogative as a police officer to protect public safety. Babb's estate, which included his two children, sued Stutesman and the city of Eugene claiming the shooting was a display of excessive force. The trial lasted a week.

Babb, 49 at the time of his death, was experiencing a breakdown likely caused by post-traumatic stress and brain injury he received while serving as a soldier in Afghanistan. Eugene police surrounded his house because Babb's therapist called them to say he was suicidal and already had fired a round from his handgun, but when officers arrived in an armored vehicle the situation deteriorated.

Babb, at one point, opened his front door, and Stutesman shot once, killing him.

Much of the case hinged on whether or not Babb carried and pointed a rifle when he answered the door. The attorneys for his estate argued Babb did not have a rifle in his hands and strongly implied police planted the rifle that was found near his body.

The defendants' attorney argued that the idea of the rifle being planted was far fetched, implausible and unproven by the plaintiff's case. Stutesman already had been cleared of criminal liability for killing Babb by the Lane County district attorney.

Before deliberations began, the plaintiff's attorney asked the jury to award the Babb estate $9.3 million in damages.

But Stephanie Babb, Brian Babb's sister and a spokesperson for the family, said after the verdict that the case had more to do with showing increasingly militarized police forces across the country often can kill with impunity because the law protects officers in most instances.

"They already had done enough defense to set themselves up for an appeal," Stephanie Babb said. "This isn't a loss. This is just one step in changing those laws, making a difference in our society today and for the families that have never gotten this far."

Ten times during his closing statement, Babb family attorney Carlton Odim reminded the jury, "Brian Babb was in his home."

"He was talking to his therapist in his home. He called his therapist to talk to his therapist. He was doing what his therapist taught him to do when he was in meltdown. Brian Babb was in his home managing his PTSD, his suicidal thoughts," Odim said. "Brian Babb was in his home when, unbeknownst to him, Eugene police militarized the exterior of his house ... He had done nothing wrong."

Odim argued through the trial that the pieces of the case, as presented by Eugene police, did not add up. He'd argued the rifle found on the front porch should have been closer to Babb's body and blood smeared and questioned the quality police audio/visual evidence.

"Brian was not holding a rifle," he said the evidence showed. "If Brian was not holding a rifle, he was not putting anyone in danger. He was not putting Stutesman in danger. He was not putting himself in danger. He was not putting any other officer on the scene in danger."

Robert Franz, an attorney for Stutesman, argued otherwise, saying the evidence showed a plot to put a rifle near Babb's body would have had to be invented and executed within minutes. He argued it's much easier to believe Babb had and aimed the rifle out his front door.

Franz also argued in his closing statement that Stutesman had every reason to believe Babb posed a danger to officers at the scene.

Franz reminded the jury they were responsible for Stutesman's future, which required firm decisions on their part. He told them their choice was simple: Did Stutesman use excessive force when he killed Babb, yes or no?

"If you come back with yes, your yes just meant he killed somebody in cold blood," Franz said. "If you find a yes verdict, you have found he's lied to you. You have found he has lied on tape. You have found he has shot and killed an innocent person. And you have found that he is a dirty cop, and for the rest of his life he's a dirty cop and a dirty cop has no place anywhere in this state or in this city."

Follow Adam Duvernay on Twitter @DuvernayOR or email aduvernay@registerguard.com.