Lexus Ford Charged in Milwaukee Drive-By Shooting
Lexus Ford, 34, has been charged in connection with a late-August drive-by shooting that left one person dead and another injured, according to Fox 6 Now.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 10, 2026, 5:19 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 10, 2026, 5:23 p.m. ET
Lexus Ford Charged in Milwaukee Drive-By Shooting
Lexus Ford, 34, has been charged in connection with a late-August drive-by shooting in Milwaukee that left one person dead and another injured, Fox 6 Now reported. The charges are 1st-Degree Reckless Homicide, Use of a Dangerous Weapon; 1st Degree Reckless Injury, Use of a Dangerous Weapon; and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon.
The government alleges that Ford committed the drive-by shooting in late August. The Milwaukee Police Department investigated the case.
The matter is at the charging stage and is undecided. Ford has not been tried or convicted, and is presumed innocent. No trial or sentencing has occurred, and no date has been set, according to Fox 6 Now.
Sep 10, 2026, 5:19 p.m. ETFirst report
Milwaukee man charged in late-August drive-by shooting
A 34-year-old man, Lexus Ford, has been charged in connection with a drive-by shooting in late August that left one person dead and another injured, according to fox6now.com.
The charges are 1st-Degree Reckless Homicide, Use of a Dangerous Weapon; 1st Degree Reckless Injury, Use of a Dangerous Weapon; and Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, fox6now.com reported. The government alleges Ford committed the drive-by shooting, the outlet reported.
The Milwaukee Police Department is the investigating agency, according to fox6now.com. The case is at the charging stage, and the charges are allegations; Ford has not been tried, and he is presumed innocent. The matter is undecided.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 21:23current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 21:19current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 21:28current
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.