A court commissioner cited the defendant’s reported statements, access to firearms and alleged conduct after his father tried to disarm him.
WAUKESHA, Wis. — A court commissioner set a $500,000 cash bond for a Town of Delafield man accused of shooting his father, saying allegations presented during the defendant’s first appearance pointed to a significant danger that could not be addressed through an ordinary release order.
The June 24 hearing moved the case beyond the emergency response at a family home and into the Wisconsin court system, where Connor Zastrow, 25, faces one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide with a domestic abuse modifier. Prosecutors say Zastrow fired three times during a Father’s Day struggle over a handgun, striking his 52-year-old father twice in the abdomen. The father survived. Zastrow is presumed innocent unless convicted, and the bond ruling was not a verdict on the charge.
Court Commissioner Christopher Bailey focused on more than the number of shots. He referred to allegations that Zastrow had spoken about using a gun against a police officer, that officers found other loaded firearms associated with him and that he appeared calm after the shooting. Bailey said the reported lack of emotion was troubling when considered with the accusation that Zastrow had fired at a close family member who was trying to remove a weapon from his control. The commissioner also emphasized the relationship between the two men. According to local court coverage, Bailey reasoned that a person willing to use a firearm against his father during a dispute might present an even greater risk during a confrontation with someone he did not know. He ordered GPS monitoring as a condition if Zastrow could post the cash bond. Available county records continued to list Zastrow in the Waukesha County Jail on July 22.
The criminal complaint traces the case to about 3 p.m. June 21, when Zastrow’s father and the father’s girlfriend returned from a Father’s Day lunch. The woman told investigators that Zastrow was seated on the porch with a handgun positioned near his chest. She went inside while the father stayed outside. She said she heard the men raise their voices and heard discussion of gun laws before the argument became physical and gunfire followed.
The dispute was not described merely as a disagreement over firearm ownership. The father told police that he was concerned about Zastrow’s handling of guns and questioned why his son needed to be armed while sitting outside the home. During that conversation, Zastrow allegedly referred to a Hartland police officer who had arrested him for operating while intoxicated. The complaint says Zastrow indicated that he might use the gun against that officer if the officer tried to take similar action again.
That alleged comment became part of the prosecution’s argument about community safety, even though early reports did not identify a separate charge based on the statement. The father said he responded by telling his son that he would take away his guns and that Zastrow could no longer keep them. When the father tried to take the handgun, Zastrow allegedly struck him in the face. Prosecutors say Zastrow then discharged the gun three times, with two rounds hitting his father’s abdomen.
Zastrow gave police a different detail about the beginning of the physical struggle, saying his father had shoved or attacked him while reaching for the firearm. Officers observed a bruise on Zastrow’s face, as well as a small cut on his arm, according to descriptions of the complaint. He also reported pain in his head and shoulder. Those observations could become relevant to the defense, but prosecutors allege that firing repeatedly toward his father showed an intent to kill rather than a limited reaction to being pushed.
The question of intent is central because Wisconsin’s completed offense of first-degree intentional homicide requires proof that a defendant acted with intent to kill. State law classifies an attempt to commit a crime punishable by life imprisonment as a Class B felony. To obtain a conviction, prosecutors must prove not only the intended crime but also conduct that clearly advanced toward its commission. The fact that the father survived changed the offense alleged, but it did not prevent prosecutors from filing a charge tied to an alleged intent to cause death.
Statements attributed to Zastrow are likely to receive close attention as the case proceeds. During an interview, he allegedly said he knew that shooting his father could have been fatal but believed the areas he targeted would cause injury instead. He also reportedly said he wanted to leave and go skating or find something enjoyable to do, and that shooting his father appeared to be the only way to get away. Asked directly why he fired, he allegedly described himself as disturbed or homicidal.
Those statements may be used by the state to support its view that the shooting was intentional, while the defense may examine their context, wording and reliability. A defendant’s reported remark does not eliminate the prosecution’s duty to prove the legal elements through admissible evidence. Attorneys can challenge how an interview was conducted, whether a statement was accurately recorded, what a defendant understood and whether the complete conversation supports the interpretation placed on selected lines.
After the shooting, Zastrow called 911 himself. Dispatch traffic reported by WISN indicated that he admitted being the shooter and tried to control his father’s bleeding while responders were on the way. When officers reached the McDowell Road area, they found the wounded man on gravel near the house and walkway. He was transported for treatment and was expected to survive. Authorities have not publicly identified him or released a complete account of his recovery. The decision to call for help and provide aid may be raised by the defense as evidence of Zastrow’s actions after the gunfire. Prosecutors, however, can argue that later aid does not determine the intent present when the trigger was pulled. The court will ultimately have to separate evidence about the alleged shooting itself from conduct occurring after the father had already been wounded. Neither factor, standing alone, settles the criminal charge.
Police searches added another layer to the bond discussion. Investigators said they located an AR-15-style rifle on a bed in Zastrow’s room, another AR-style rifle in his vehicle and additional ammunition. The reports do not say those rifles were used against his father. Their importance at the hearing instead concerned Zastrow’s access to weapons, his father’s stated worries about gun safety and the alleged comment regarding the Hartland officer.
Assistant District Attorney Brooke Schultz also told the court about an incident at Zastrow’s mother’s home in Lac La Belle in 2025. Schultz alleged that Zastrow fired about 15 rounds there and said the handgun was the same weapon used in the Father’s Day shooting. Public reporting reviewed for this article does not establish whether the earlier episode resulted in a charge or conviction. Bailey nevertheless cited it when explaining why he did not view the new accusation as an isolated event.
Family statements introduced a mental health concern without establishing a diagnosis. The father’s girlfriend said the family had discussed obtaining help for Zastrow because of recent worries. His father said his son had acted strangely for months and suggested he might have an undiagnosed condition. No publicly reported clinical assessment confirmed that belief. Mental illness and criminal intent are separate legal questions, and a relative’s concern does not by itself prove either a medical condition or a defense.
The domestic abuse modifier is based on the family or household relationship involved in the alleged conduct. It can bring special arrest, notification and release procedures into a case, but it does not change the presumption of innocence. Prosecutors must still prove the attempted-homicide allegation, including intent, through evidence presented in court. The defense may also seek to test the father’s account, the girlfriend’s observations, physical evidence from the porch and the accuracy of Zastrow’s reported statements.
No publicly available report reviewed for this version established a final plea, trial date or resolution. Zastrow remained in county custody on July 22, four weeks after the initial bond hearing. Future proceedings are expected to determine whether the state has enough evidence to continue the case and, if it does, whether the allegations can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Author note: Last updated July 22, 2026.