Indianapolis Man Enters Diversion Agreement Over Threats

A 26-year-old local man reached a court agreement following threats made against two radio hosts.

Updated on Oct. 27, 2026 in Terrorism

Bold flat-color editorial illustration of a single limestone pillar, evoking the solemn nature of judicial diversion agreements. — Tristan Jones of Beech Grove has entered a court diversion agreement in Indianapolis following threats made against WIBC radio hosts in 2025. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should diversion agreements be used in cases involving alleged online threats against individuals?

Tristan Jones of Beech Grove has entered a court diversion agreement after posting threats against Indianapolis radio hosts Jason Hammer and Nigel Laskowski. The threats were posted on the platform X in September 2025 during a discussion about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Why it matters

The case highlights the legal consequences of online speech directed at public figures. The resolution through a diversion agreement allows the defendant to avoid immediate prosecution while subjecting the case to further judicial oversight.

Tristan Jones, 26, entered the diversion agreement on October 27, 2026, following reports filed with the Indianapolis police. He is currently scheduled to return to court for a hearing on January 19, 2027.

The players

Tristan Jones

The 26-year-old defendant from Beech Grove who faced charges for online threats.

Jason Hammer

A radio host at WIBC who was targeted by the online threats.

Nigel Laskowski

A radio host at WIBC who was targeted by the online threats.

The details

Jones, who deleted the post after it was reported, maintained during the legal proceedings that he was not serious and did not intend to be violent. The threats targeted the WIBC radio hosts specifically in relation to political commentary.

September 2025: Tristan Jones posted threats on X.
October 27, 2026: Tristan Jones entered a diversion agreement in court.
January 19, 2027: Tristan Jones returns to court for a hearing.

Legal Context

This case follows a pattern set by Indiana court diversion programs that allow individuals to avoid traditional criminal sentencing. Such programs are increasingly utilized in the jurisdiction to manage cases involving digital threats.

This case serves as a reminder to Indianapolis residents that police actively investigate reports of online threats. The ongoing judicial process underscores the legal scrutiny applied to social media behavior involving radio personalities.

The takeaway

Online commentary that crosses the line into threats can lead to significant legal intervention regardless of the intent behind the post. Residents should exercise caution as local authorities continue to treat digital threats against public figures as serious matters.