Oh, I agree…the recent case of the State of Wyoming vs. Gaige Zook…I agree! 

The case is tragic – but not legally defined as accidental – a shotgun shooting death involving two men under the age of 21 and a third “witness”. 

I agree. This is not a case where an eye for an eye retribution is necessary and even more so considering the state’s witness had his eyes turned away from the victim, as records noted, at the time of the horrific incident. I agree. 

Zook was sentenced to three years of supervised probation for the death of his friend, Marz Dadin. 

During the proceedings, both parties drew attention to Zook’s character noting the now 21-year-old was and had been working and he was continuing to meet all conditions of his bond. He had no prior run-ins with the law. He had been attending college and planned to return, if his fate would allow.

Zook was only 20 years old. On the morning in question, Zook and his friends were duck hunting when he went to inspect his shotgun, which had misfired earlier that morning and something happened. 

The defense suggested perhaps the victim, an inexperienced non-hunter, had moved in front of the range of fire while the state argued the defendant’s firearm handling resulted in the death of Dadin. 

But no one saw him pull the trigger. 

From the affidavit of probable cause, the victim was struck by the shot in the left side of his abdomen and died. 

There was no evidence, no proof that Zook intentionally pointed his shotgun at Dadin in the close quarters of the duck blind. 

An eye for an eye.

Three years supervised probation. 

Thirty-six months of supervision is not equivalent to taking a life…and frankly, that is okay in this case. 

This case is Zook’s life. He will forever chase the mental demons associated with his personal responsibility for the death of Dadin. Nothing will bring Dadin back. 

Taking the life of the offender will not bring back the victim. 

But three years? Why three?

In three years, Zook will be 24 years old. 

According to the National Library of Medicine, the critical development of the prefrontal cortex isn’t complete until nearly 25 years of age, and brains continue to develop until then. 

Wouldn’t it be best to see how Zook continues to manage the trauma inflicted on himself until his brain is fully developed by sentencing him to at least five years of supervision?

There are countless research studies indicating trauma can significantly impact the structure and function of the brain – primarily the areas associated with emotional regulation, memory and stress response. 

Wouldn’t it be best to keep Zook under supervision just a bit longer to see how his brain functions after the traumatic event of tragically and unintentionally killing his close friend?

Although both sides clearly attest to the fact Zook appeared to be a model citizen in comparison to the case the court heard moments before…the fact that his brain is still developing says a lot. 

Could he have cleaned up and dusted off just to slide through his court proceedings? Sure, some criminals put on one heck of a show just to look like they could be good citizens. The keyword there is “criminals”. I don’t feel Zook is a criminal. 

Did he act recklessly? I can’t even say that. I haven’t seen the evidence but I can say, I do not believe he picked up his shotgun and killed his friend with intention. I believe the physical evidence, which is not public record, could possibly explain whether or not the gun was pointed at the victim – if it was actually collected at the time. I believe a firearms evaluation by an expert could have also shed some light on both parties in this matter. When the gun fired, how did it fire? Information experts would have provided in court, one would hope, if the case actually went to trial. 

What is the appropriate retribution for a crime? 

What makes one offender a criminal and the other a statistic? 

Zook had no prior run-ins with the law. Does that make him less of a criminal? 

A few moments before Zook and his family learned the young man’s fate, the court heard the sentencing arguments for a mother charged with endangering a child – her child. 

She was sentenced to three years of supervised probation. 

Now, let’s break that case apart from what court documents have shown. 

A mother leaves her two children along with her drugs and drug paraphernalia in a local hotel room she had rented. Hotel staff happened to find the door to the rented room open and when the staff looked in the room, another child was located in a playpen and the mother was gone. Law enforcement arrived and eventually, the mother returned from “buying groceries”. Records don’t tell us what was in the grocery bags she was carrying, but I am pretty sure the grocery store allows children. I’ve never seen a parent kicked out of a store for taking their children grocery shopping. 

The two children were in the custody of the state and she was granted visitation. She had been bonded out to stay with her grandmother, as a caretaker, in Nebraska. The court held a short recess since no one recognized her in the lobby. While the court sat in recess to locate the mother, party chatter of those in the courtroom arose. 

Even though the mother had been granted visitation, she didn’t see her children. Her grandmother reported she had become physically abusive. And there were concerns about the mother doing her mandatory drug testing. Only one of those points was mentioned in court where the mother’s public defender explained his client was “too depressed” to visit her children. I wonder how the children feel.

Learning a little about the mother’s criminal history, it was made apparent she had been convicted of seven misdemeanors prior to abandoning her children in a hotel room…with her drugs, of course. Drugs do some terrible things to people.

The court warned the mother this was her last chance…the court told the mother she had the ability to be a good mother…Truth is, she actually has five children. Three of those children were not in her care…or custody. 

Part of her agreement was that she attended some form of substance abuse program to which she noted she would travel to a treatment facility in Casper or one in Sheridan. 

History has shown, she has already been to a treatment facility…. not just once. She also checked herself out…

Three years supervised probation?

Now, I know we are going to compare apples and oranges but how can a mother leave her children alone in a hotel room, with drugs… prior convictions…with clear, documented cases of failing her children over and over and over…and walk out of the courtroom with the same sentence as an accident? 

Again, this mother knew what she was doing…she knew it was illegal to possess and use methamphetamine…she knew those drugs could kill her children…She knew even the small trace of meth found on her pipe could kill them…

Both parties attested to Dalton’s desire to change. Both parties acknowledged Dalton’s “willingness to complete treatment” ….wait….thought she already went to treatment? 

If we are going to take psychology into account, we need to do it consistently. Just because a person can admit their problems essentially when they’re looking down the barrel of a loaded gun doesn’t mean they’re going to change. 

Everybody’s rock bottom looks differently. An offender will continue to offend until they hit the bottom of the deep, dark hole of their actions and behaviors – regardless of the offense.

In the case of Zook, one can only hope the psychological trauma he endured doesn’t shape and mold his brain in a way that makes him a repeat offender. 

Perhaps we should have tossed the keys away with the druggie mom since she’d had her hand slapped seven times and hasn’t learned any lesson other than manipulation. Maybe if her first offense held a more substantial deterrence, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. 

Although I agree, these cases are apples and oranges, maybe we can learn from one to prevent the other.