ST. LOUIS, MO — September 15, 2026 (STL.News) — St. Louis police are reviewing video of longtime Alderwoman Sharon Tyus appearing to threaten fellow Alderman Rasheen Aldridge during a heated public meeting, adding another serious confrontation to a history of contentious exchanges involving one of the city’s longest-serving elected officials.

Video from a Monday meeting concerning the Homer G. Phillips Senior Apartments captured Tyus, who represents Ward 12, directing an extraordinary statement toward Aldridge, the Ward 14 alderman.

“If you was in my black caucus, you would be the first person I would put a bullet in your head because you are not trustworthy,” Tyus said, according to video and multiple local reports.

The statement immediately raised questions extending beyond political decorum because it specifically referenced shooting another elected city official.

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department confirmed it is aware of the comments and is reviewing available information.

Board of Aldermen President Megan Green is also reviewing the incident, according to local reporting.

As of Tuesday morning, STL.News has not identified a public announcement that Tyus has been criminally charged in connection with the statement. A police review is not the same as a criminal charge, and whether the statement satisfies the requirements of any Missouri criminal statute is ultimately a matter for investigators and prosecutors.

But a deeper examination of Tyus’ political history shows that Monday’s episode did not emerge from an otherwise uneventful relationship between the two aldermen.

Tyus and Aldridge have publicly clashed before.

Tyus and Aldridge Have a History of Conflict

In November 2025, Tyus and Aldridge engaged in a highly contentious exchange during debate over an Ethical Divestment of Funds resolution sponsored by Aldridge.

The resolution called on trustees of the city’s Employees Retirement System to avoid investments in companies considered complicit in violence domestically or overseas.

During that debate, Tyus criticized the proposal and made controversial remarks about Palestinians operating gas stations in her neighborhood.

Aldridge strongly rebuked those comments, characterizing the rhetoric as divisive and comparing it to President Donald Trump‘s political style.

Tyus subsequently called Aldridge a liar.

The confrontation escalated to the point that Board President Megan Green ordered Tyus’ microphone muted.

That episode is important context for Monday’s confrontation.

The statement about putting a bullet in Aldridge’s head was therefore not directed toward a colleague with whom Tyus had no documented history of serious political conflict.

The two aldermen had already engaged in a highly publicized confrontation less than a year earlier.

That does not establish that Tyus intended to physically harm Aldridge on Monday, but it shows that substantial political hostility between the two officials predates the latest incident.

Homer G. Phillips Is at the Center of Latest Dispute

Monday’s confrontation occurred during a discussion involving the Homer G. Phillips Senior Apartments.

The property is located at 2601 Whittier Street and has been the subject of pending city legislation sponsored by Tyus.

City records show Tyus introduced Board Bill 27 on May 21.

The legislation concerns an acknowledgment and consent to the assignment of an amended and restated lease involving the multifamily building commonly known as the Homer G. Phillips Senior Apartments.

The bill was referred to the Board’s Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee.

That legislative connection is significant because Tyus is not simply an alderwoman commenting from the sidelines on the property.

She is the primary sponsor of the pending legislation concerning the lease transfer.

The Homer G. Phillips name itself carries substantial historical importance in St. Louis.

The former Homer G. Phillips Hospital was one of the nation’s most important hospitals serving Black patients and training Black medical professionals during segregation. The historic institution remains deeply significant to generations of St. Louis residents.

That history has made developing and using property associated with the Homer G. Phillips name particularly sensitive.

But regardless of how strongly elected officials disagree over the property’s future, Monday’s language has shifted attention from the underlying policy dispute to the conduct of the elected officials themselves.

Sharon Tyus Has Served for Decades

Tyus is not a newcomer to St. Louis government.

City records show a political career stretching back more than three decades.

She represented Ward 20 from the 1991-1992 legislative session through 2002-2003.

After an absence from the Board, she returned representing Ward 1 beginning with the 2013-2014 session and continued representing that ward until the city’s ward-reduction process changed St. Louis from 28 wards to 14.

Tyus subsequently became the representative for Ward 12 beginning with the 2023-2024 session.

She remains the Ward 12 alderwoman for the current 2026-2027 legislative session.

That longevity makes the latest incident more consequential.

Tyus is an experienced elected official familiar with Board procedures, political disputes, and the responsibilities that accompany public office.

City records list approximately 168 ordinances introduced, authored or co-authored by Tyus during her aldermanic career.

Her legislative history includes measures involving zoning, redevelopment, liquor regulation, public safety, municipal employment and neighborhood development.

She has also taken strong positions on major citywide financial issues.

In July, Tyus was one of only three aldermen voting against legislation allocating approximately $255 million from the city’s NFL Rams settlement.

During debate, she argued that North St. Louis was not receiving a sufficient share of the money and sparred with colleagues over how to distribute the settlement.

Her opposition reflected a recurring theme throughout her career: Tyus frequently presents herself as a defender of North St. Louis neighborhoods and has been willing to openly confront other city officials when she believes those communities are being shortchanged.

That policy advocacy, however, is separate from the question now confronting city government: what standards apply when an elected official invokes shooting another elected official during a public political dispute?

Tyus Previously Clashed With Megan Green

Aldridge is also not the only current city official with whom Tyus has experienced a major public confrontation.

The first meeting of the newly reduced 14-ward Board of Aldermen in April 2023 became contentious when Tyus confronted newly elected Board President Megan Green over changes to the Board’s committee structure.

The old system had given substantial weight to seniority when assigning committee leadership.

Green supported rules giving the Board president and leadership greater authority over committee assignments, saying the changes were intended to increase accountability and reduce the political infighting that had historically affected the Board.

Tyus reacted angrily.

During the meeting, she called Green “autocratic,” “ignorant,” and “racist.”

Green warned Tyus that she could be removed from the chamber if she failed to comply with rules of decorum.

Tyus also warned Green that efforts to take away her seniority would result in a political “war.”

The episode demonstrated an adversarial relationship between Tyus and the new Board leadership from the beginning of the 14-ward structure.

However, it is important to distinguish political language from Monday’s statement.

Political figures frequently use terms such as “war,” “fight,” and “battle” metaphorically.

The latest statement is substantially more specific because it describes putting a bullet in a named colleague’s head.

Current Board Rules Put Decorum Under President

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen adopts procedural rules for every legislative session.

The current 2026-2027 rules were adopted April 21.

Those rules govern meetings, procedures, debate, decorum, and voting.

Under the Board’s governmental structure, the president of the Board of Aldermen presides over meetings, preserves decorum, and determines questions of order.

That gives Green an institutional responsibility to maintain order in aldermanic proceedings.

The Board consists of 14 ward representatives plus its separately elected president.

What internal disciplinary action could follow Monday’s statement will depend on the applicable charter provisions, Board rules, the circumstances surrounding the meeting, and whatever action Board members choose to pursue.

STL.News has not identified an announcement as of Tuesday morning that formal censure proceedings have been initiated against Tyus.

A police review should not automatically be interpreted as proof that a prosecutable criminal threat occurred.

Those are separate questions.

One concerns standards of conduct within a legislative body.

The other concerns Missouri criminal law.

Tyus Has Also Been an Aggressive Critic of Others

Tyus has repeatedly demanded accountability from government agencies, businesses, and institutions during her career.

Following the chaotic December 2023 closure of Northview Village Nursing Home, for example, Tyus joined officials demanding answers after approximately 170 residents were abruptly transferred to other facilities.

Some families initially struggled to determine where relatives were moved, while employees were left without jobs and reported problems with unpaid wages.

Tyus called for aldermanic hearings and discussed a possible criminal investigation with the Circuit Attorney’s Office.

That history makes the present situation noteworthy.

An elected official who has repeatedly demanded accountability from other institutions is now facing scrutiny over her own conduct during a public meeting.

The Standard Should Apply Regardless of Politics

There is an important distinction STL.News believes should remain central to coverage of this incident.

Tyus has every right to disagree with Aldridge.

She can oppose his legislation.

She can challenge his political positions.

She can accuse him of being wrong, unreliable, or politically misguided.

Aldridge has the same right to criticize Tyus.

Political disagreement is an essential part of representative government.

But invoking shooting another elected official in the head crosses into substantially different territory, particularly when the statement occurs during an already heated dispute.

That concern does not depend on Tyus’ political party, race, ideology, ward, or political faction.

The same standard should apply to any elected official.

St. Louis’ Gun-Violence Context Makes Words Matter

The statement also occurred in a city where shootings and gun violence remain major public concerns.

St. Louis officials routinely ask residents to resolve conflicts without firearms.

Police investigate threats involving guns.

Community organizations work to reduce retaliatory violence.

Parents, schools and neighborhood groups are repeatedly told that disagreements cannot be resolved through gunfire.

Against that backdrop, an elected official publicly talking about putting a bullet in another elected official’s head deserves serious scrutiny.

That does not mean the statement should automatically be characterized as a criminal threat.

Criminal liability requires legal analysis, evidence, and prosecutorial judgment.

It does mean city leaders have legitimate reasons to examine whether such language meets the standards expected from people entrusted with making the city’s laws.

Police Review Is Now the Immediate Question

The most important next development will be the result of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department’s review.

Investigators can examine the complete video rather than an isolated clip, interview people present at the meeting, determine precisely what preceded and followed the statement, and speak directly with Tyus and Aldridge.

If police believe the evidence could support criminal charges, they could present the matter to prosecutors for review.

If investigators conclude the statement does not satisfy the requirements for criminal prosecution, the Board of Aldermen could still separately consider whether the conduct warrants an institutional response.

Those processes should not be conflated.

Political misconduct does not automatically constitute a crime.

And conduct that falls short of criminal prosecution can still raise serious questions about judgment, professionalism and standards of public office.

A Long Political Career Faces New Scrutiny

Sharon Tyus has survived changing ward boundaries, changing Board leadership and decades of St. Louis political realignment.

She has represented portions of North St. Louis across three eras of the city’s aldermanic structure and has repeatedly shown she is willing to challenge other elected officials publicly.

That willingness to fight politically has been part of her public identity.

But Monday’s statement is different from a heated vote, an argument over committee assignments, or a disagreement about how St. Louis should spend hundreds of millions of dollars.

It specifically invoked putting a bullet in the head of another sitting alderman.

And it was captured on video.

Tyus’ previous clashes with Aldridge and Green provide relevant context, but they do not determine what Monday’s statement legally means.

Investigators and, if warranted, prosecutors make that determination first.

The political question is broader.

St. Louis residents are entitled to vigorous representation and vigorous debate. They are also entitled to expect elected officials to demonstrate the standards of conduct they routinely demand from the public.

For now, Tyus remains the elected alderwoman representing Ward 12, Aldridge remains the elected alderman representing Ward 14, and no criminal charge has been announced against Tyus in connection with Monday’s statement.

But the controversy is no longer merely an argument between two aldermen.

The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is reviewing what happened, the president of the Board of Aldermen is examining the incident, and a decades-long political career is facing renewed scrutiny over words that are difficult to dismiss as ordinary City Hall rhetoric.

Editor’s note: This is a developing story. STL.News will update this report if the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Circuit Attorney’s Office, Board of Aldermen, Alderwoman Sharon Tyus or Alderman Rasheen Aldridge announces additional action or provides material new information.

Legal note: No criminal charge against Tyus related to the statement had been identified by STL.News at the time of publication. A police review does not establish criminal wrongdoing, and any person accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.