FirstAlerts

Dover Man Charged with Robbery of Landscaper

Richard Morgan faces first-degree robbery and firearm possession charges in connection with a September incident; the case is undecided.

3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 9:46 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 2, 2026, 8:41 p.m. ETWritten Sep 2, 2026, 9:57 p.m. ET
Richard Morgan has been with first-degree robbery and felony possession of a firearm, according to wmdt.com. The charges stem from an incident in which Morgan allegedly reached for a victim and displayed a small metal baseball bat after the victim pushed him away, as reported by wmdt.com. The Delaware State Police investigated the case. As the matter is only at the charging stage, it is undecided, and Morgan is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 2, 2026, 9:53 p.m. ET

    Dover Man Charged with Robbery of Landscaper

    Richard Morgan has been charged with first-degree robbery and felony possession of a firearm, according to wmdt.com. The charges stem from an incident in which Morgan allegedly reached for the victim and displayed a small metal baseball bat after the victim pushed him away, as reported by wmdt.com.

    The case remains undecided, and Morgan has not been tried. He is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. Delaware State Police investigated the case.

  2. Sep 2, 2026, 9:46 p.m. ETFirst report

    Dover Man Charged with Robbery of Landscaper

    Richard Morgan has been charged with first degree robbery and felony possession of a firearm, according to Delaware State Police, as reported by WMDT. The charges stem from an incident in which Morgan allegedly reached for a victim and displayed a small metal baseball bat after the victim pushed him away, WMDT reported.

    The Delaware State Police are investigating the case. Morgan has been charged but not yet tried; charges are allegations, and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 13 Sept 2026, 01:53current

    First published.

  2. Version 13 Sept 2026, 01:46current

    First published.

  3. Version 13 Sept 2026, 01:57current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.