FirstAlerts

Laron Jordan Charged with Aggravated Assault in Hattiesburg Shooting

Laron Jordan faces an aggravated assault charge in connection with a shooting near North 25th Avenue restaurants; the case has not yet gone to trial.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 12:43 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 8, 2026, 11:12 p.m. ETWritten Sep 9, 2026, 12:52 a.m. ET
Laron Jordan, 31, of Hattiesburg, has been with aggravated assault in connection with a shooting that injured a person in the arm, according to wdam.com. The charge stems from an altercation near restaurants on North 25th Avenue. As this is only a charge, the case has not been decided, and Jordan has not been tried; he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The government alleges that Jordan shot the victim during the altercation. The charge was reported by wdam.com; further details, including the date of the incident and any court proceedings, have not been established.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 9, 2026, 12:43 a.m. ETFirst report

    Hattiesburg Man Charged With Aggravated Assault in Shooting Near Restaurants

    A Hattiesburg man has been charged with aggravated assault following a shooting near restaurants on North 25th Avenue, according to wdam.com. The incident occurred on September 9, 2026, and police say a person was injured.

    Laron Jordan, 31, of Hattiesburg, is charged with aggravated assault, as reported by wdam.com. The government claims Jordan shot a person in the arm during an altercation near the restaurants. The charges are allegations, and Jordan is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This matter is only at the charging stage and has not been resolved in court.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 19 Sept 2026, 04:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 19 Sept 2026, 04:43current

    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.