A Tennessee mother came home in the middle of the night and discovered what her attorney later described as every parent’s worst nightmare.

A man was hiding beneath her daughter’s bed.

Minutes later, he was dead in the front yard from a gunshot wound to the back of the head.

Now 36-year-old Kendra Scott is being held without bond and charged with first-degree murder.

“I did what I had to do,” Scott allegedly told police after the shooting, according to an arrest affidavit obtained by PEOPLE.

The case has already ignited an emotional debate over parental fear, self-defense and the point at which an immediate threat may have ended.

Memphis police responded to a reported shooting on Travis Road at approximately 1:40 a.m. on July 16.

When officers arrived, they found an unresponsive man lying in the front yard near the house. He had suffered a gunshot wound to the back of his head and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Authorities tentatively identified him as Rodderius Morton. His age was not immediately released.

Scott reportedly told officers that she had returned home and found “a dude under my kid’s bed.”

She then allegedly added: “I did what I had to do.”

A neighbor gave investigators another account of the moments following the gunfire.

The witness said he came outside after hearing a shot and saw the wounded man near Scott’s front porch. Scott was allegedly standing in the yard holding a firearm and repeating, “I shot him, I shot him.”

But a juvenile who was inside the house provided details that could become central to the prosecution.

According to the affidavit, the juvenile told investigators that Morton had been invited into the home shortly before Scott arrived.

The young person said Morton entered at approximately 1:20 or 1:30 a.m. without Scott’s knowledge.

Scott then returned and began shouting, “Who’s at my house?”

The juvenile said Scott was holding a gun and that they were afraid of her.

The affidavit also attributes a previous warning to Scott: that if she ever saw a boy inside her home, she would “put a hole” in him.

Investigators said Scott eventually discovered Morton hiding under the bed.

What happened next may determine whether the shooting is viewed as a terrified parent reacting to a perceived threat—or an intentional killing after that threat had passed.

The juvenile reportedly told police that Morton collected his belongings and left the house.

Only after he exited did the juvenile hear a gunshot.

The location and nature of the injury are likely to receive intense scrutiny. Police reported that Morton was struck in the back of the head and found outside the home.

Those details could complicate any argument that Scott fired while facing an immediate attack, although the full circumstances have not yet been established in court.

Scott’s attorney, Blake Ballin, urged the public not to reduce the case to its most damaging facts.

He said the incident began with “the worst nightmare of any parent” and identified the juvenile as Scott’s 13-year-old daughter.

“One of the key questions in this case will be whether anyone could act rationally in this circumstance,” Ballin said.

That statement suggests the defense may focus on Scott’s mental and emotional state after unexpectedly finding an unknown male concealed in her young daughter’s bedroom.

A parent entering that situation could reasonably experience fear, panic and rage.

But the law generally distinguishes between feeling threatened and facing an imminent danger that justifies deadly force.

Self-defense claims typically depend on whether the person believed deadly force was immediately necessary and whether that belief was reasonable under the circumstances.

The prosecution may argue that Morton was leaving or had already left the home when he was shot, meaning the immediate danger had ended.

The defense could contend that the scene was chaotic, Scott did not know who Morton was, why he had been hiding or whether he still posed a threat to her family.

The juvenile’s account may also raise difficult questions unrelated to Scott’s guilt.

Why was Morton invited inside so late at night?

Why did he hide beneath the bed when Scott returned?

What was his relationship with the child?

And what did Scott believe was happening when she found him?

No public evidence currently establishes that Morton intended to harm the juvenile. According to the affidavit, he had been invited into the home.

But Scott may not have known that when she entered the bedroom.

The case therefore contains two very different timelines.

The first is the emotional timeline: a mother discovers a man secretly hiding beneath her 13-year-old daughter’s bed and reacts in terror.

The second is the legal timeline: the man reportedly gathers his belongings, exits the house and is then shot from behind.

Jurors may eventually have to decide which timeline carries more weight.

Scott has been charged with first-degree murder, an accusation that generally requires prosecutors to prove an intentional and premeditated killing under Tennessee law.

She also faces a charge of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony.

The charges are allegations. Scott is presumed innocent unless and until she is convicted.

Her alleged statement—“I did what I had to do”—could be used by both sides.

Prosecutors may portray it as an admission that she consciously chose to shoot Morton.

The defense may argue that it reflects the mindset of a frightened parent who believed she was protecting her child.

The reported prior threat about shooting any boy found inside the house could also become significant. Prosecutors may cite it as evidence of intent or premeditation.

The defense may challenge the context, reliability or meaning of the juvenile’s recollection.

There may also be forensic questions about the distance of the shot, the positions of Scott and Morton, the path he took from the bedroom and whether any confrontation occurred outside.

Those details were not fully described in the initial public reports.

Scott’s first arraignment is scheduled for July 24.

Until then, she remains jailed without bond.

The case has already attracted strong reactions because it forces people to confront a frightening hypothetical:

What would you do after finding a stranger hiding beneath your child’s bed?

But criminal courts do not decide cases based on what frightened observers imagine they might do.

They examine what actually happened, when the danger existed and whether deadly force was legally justified at the moment it was used.

Scott’s attorney says the story began with a mother’s nightmare.

Prosecutors say it ended in first-degree murder.

Between those two claims lies the decisive question:

Was the fatal shot an act of protection—or revenge after the threat was already walking away?