FirstAlerts

Dak Lam Sentenced in 2024 South Omaha Shooting

A 22-year-old man has been sentenced in connection with a deadly 2024 shooting in South Omaha.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 6:00 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 26, 2026, 1:27 p.m. ETWritten Aug 28, 2026, 3:22 p.m. ET
Dak Lam, 22, has been in for a deadly 2024 shooting in South Omaha, according to reports from 1011now.com and wowt.com. The sentencing follows a conviction on charges of second-degree murder, using a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Reports differ on the length of the sentence. WOWT reports Lam was to . 1011 Now reports the sentence as . The government claimed that Lam fired 23 shots at the victim, several after the victim had fallen, and that 15 bullets struck the victim, creating 24 bullet defects, which killed him, according to both outlets. The Omaha Police Department investigated the case.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 27, 2026, 6:00 p.m. ETFirst report

    Man sentenced to 60-80 years for 2024 South Omaha shooting

    Dak Lam, 22, was sentenced on August 26, 2026, in Douglas County District Court for a deadly shooting in South Omaha in 2024, according to WOWT.

    Lam received 60-80 years for second-degree murder, 10-20 years for using a firearm to commit a felony, and 10-20 years for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, to run consecutively, the outlet reported.

    The government claimed that Lam fired 23 shots at the victim, several after the victim had fallen, and that 15 bullets struck the victim, creating 24 bullet defects, which killed him, according to WOWT. The Omaha Police Department investigated the case.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 128 Aug 2026, 19:22current

    First published.

  2. Version 127 Aug 2026, 22:00current

    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.