ST. LOUIS, MO – October 3, 2026 (STL.News) St. Louis Alderwoman Sharon Tyus has been formally censured by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen following her recorded statement that she would put a “bullet” in fellow Alderman Rasheen Aldridge’s head, bringing an extraordinary City Hall dispute to a formal reprimand after weeks of controversy.
The Board censured Tyus, who represents the 12th Ward, on Friday, Oct. 2, after an extended debate in which Tyus defended herself, rejected calls for an apology, and argued that colleagues had not given sufficient consideration to her explanation of the remarks.
Tyus has consistently denied threatening Aldridge. She says her statement referred to a wartime analogy she had previously used to illustrate her distrust of him.
Aldridge, who represents the 14th Ward, has rejected that explanation and said he regarded Tyus’ words as a threat.
The controversy began during a Sept. 14 meeting concerning conditions and management of the city-owned Homer G. Phillips Senior Apartments. Video from the meeting captured Tyus criticizing Aldridge and saying, in part, that if he were in her Black caucus, he would be the first person she would put a bullet in the head because she considered him untrustworthy.
St. Louis Metropolitan Police subsequently confirmed that investigators were reviewing the video. As of this publication, STL.News has not identified a public announcement that Tyus has been criminally charged over the remarks. A police review or investigation should not be confused with the filing of criminal charges.
The controversy also prompted Aldridge to seek a restraining order against Tyus, according to First Alert 4 reporting on Sept. 16.
But a deeper look at Tyus’ political history shows the September confrontation did not occur in isolation. While STL.News found no independently verified evidence establishing that Tyus previously made another literal death threat against a colleague, she has a documented history of highly confrontational rhetoric, including previous statements invoking war and retaliation during political disputes.
Board formally censures Tyus
Board of Aldermen President Megan Green introduced Resolution 125 on Sept. 18 in response to the confrontation.
The City of St. Louis’ legislative database identifies Green as the primary sponsor and Aldermen Anne Schweitzer, Matt Devoti, Daniela Velazquez and Alisha Sonnier as co-sponsors. The Personnel and Administration Committee assigned the resolution.
The committee voted 5-0 on Oct. 1 to recommend passage of an amended version.
The city’s online legislative record had not been fully updated as of Saturday morning to reflect Friday’s final Board action. It still listed the Oct. 1 committee hearing as the latest activity and displayed committee-substitute language about a written apology. Contemporary reporting from the Oct. 2 Board meeting, however, confirms that the Board formally censured Tyus.
Reporting immediately before Friday’s meeting also indicated that the measure had been changed from its earlier form. The original resolution called for a written public apology, while the revised measure contemplated a formal verbal reprimand.
The censure is largely symbolic. It does not remove Tyus from elected office or eliminate her ability to vote as an alderwoman.
First Alert 4 reported that Tyus argued during more than an hour of debate Friday that the Board lacked authority to censure her because, under her interpretation, no applicable policy in the city charter prohibited her comments.
Tyus also criticized some sponsors of the measure for allegedly failing to contact her before supporting it.
Devoti disputed that assertion, saying he had called Tyus and left messages while attempting to understand what had happened.
Tyus remained unwilling to apologize.
Tyus says statement was a wartime analogy
Tyus’ defense has centered on context.
After the Sept. 14 video circulated publicly, Tyus said she was repeating an analogy dating back approximately three years rather than announcing an intention to harm Aldridge.
In her explanation, Tyus described a hypothetical wartime situation in which she and Aldridge were together in a foxhole. She said Aldridge would be the person she trusted least and the person she would shoot before firing at a perceived enemy.
Tyus said the analogy was intended to communicate that she considered Aldridge a greater political threat to her and her community than an outside adversary.
She denied threatening him and said she does not own a gun.
That explanation establishes an important distinction.
Tyus herself says the underlying violent analogy originated several years ago. However, STL.News has not located an independent recording or contemporaneous report documenting that earlier conversation with Aldridge.
Therefore, it would go beyond the available evidence to report that Tyus threatened to shoot Aldridge three years ago.
What can be established is that Tyus says the September statement referred to an earlier foxhole analogy expressing her distrust of Aldridge.
Tyus used ‘war’ rhetoric in the 2023 dispute
However, there is independently documented history of Tyus using combative language during previous political confrontations.
One of the clearest examples occurred in April 2023 during the first meeting of St. Louis’ newly reduced 14-member Board of Aldermen.
The Board was engaged in a bitter fight over changes to its seniority rules. Under the previous system, senior aldermen had significant influence over committee leadership. The new Board changed those procedures, increasing the authority of the Board president and elected leadership in determining committee assignments.
Tyus strongly objected.
During the April 18, 2023 meeting, Tyus directed intense criticism at Green and other Board members.
First Alert 4’s contemporaneous reporting documented Tyus warning that another attempt to take away her seniority would result in a “war” her colleagues would not see coming.
Tyus also characterized Green using terms including “autocratic,” “ignorant,” and “racist.”
The confrontation became heated enough that Green warned Tyus she could be removed from the chamber for failing to follow rules of decorum.
Archived reporting reviewed after the 2026 controversy also showed Tyus making other confrontational remarks during that period, including telling political adversaries that if they came for her, she would come for them.
None of those statements independently establishes a previous death threat.
They do, however, provide documented historical context showing that the violent imagery surrounding the Aldridge controversy followed years of unusually combative public exchanges involving Tyus and other Board members.
Newspaper previously alleged Tyus threatened it
Another incident surfaced during STL.News’ review of Tyus’ history.
In February 2023, the St. Louis American’s Political EYE column wrote that Tyus had “threatened our publication” during a dispute concerning the newspaper’s reporting about then-Alderman Brandon Bosley.
The column criticized Tyus’ understanding of the underlying Bosley matter and referred to the alleged threat while defending the newspaper’s earlier reporting.
There is an important limitation.
The article reviewed by STL.News does not describe precisely what Tyus allegedly said or explain what the newspaper considered a threat.
Consequently, based on the available evidence, that episode cannot responsibly be characterized as another threat of physical violence.
It does establish that a major St. Louis newspaper publicly accused Tyus of threatening the publication more than three years before the current controversy.
Tyus and Aldridge clashed again in 2025
The political relationship between Tyus and Aldridge continued to deteriorate.
Another significant confrontation occurred in November 2025 during debate over Aldridge’s Ethical Divestment of Funds resolution.
The proposal called on trustees overseeing the city’s employee retirement system to avoid investments in companies considered complicit in violence domestically or overseas under guidelines cited in the resolution.
Official city records show the resolution passed 10-1 on Nov. 6, 2025. Tyus was recorded as present rather than voting aye or no.
During the debate, Tyus made controversial comments about Palestinians working at gas stations in her neighborhood and connected those businesses to shootings and killings.
Aldridge sharply criticized the comments.
Spectrum News reported that Tyus subsequently called Aldridge a liar before Green ordered Tyus’ microphone muted.
Tyus did not threaten violence against Aldridge.
It is nevertheless relevant because it demonstrates that the September 2026 confrontation emerged from an already contentious political relationship between the two aldermen.
Homer G. Phillips dispute preceded bullet remark
The immediate dispute behind the September confrontation involved the Homer G. Phillips Senior Apartments at 2601 Whittier Street.
Residents have complained about heating, cooling, and other maintenance problems at the city-owned property. The St. Louis American reported that the dispute concerns a proposed transfer of the building’s lease from EPV2 Dignity House LLC to CIG Homer I LLC, a transaction requiring city approval.
Tyus has sought additional financial scrutiny before approving a transfer.
Aldridge became involved legislatively and introduced his own proposal involving the property.
Official Board records confirm that Board Bill 80, titled “Lease Agreement Homer G. Phillips,” was introduced with Aldridge as its primary sponsor during the week of Sept. 14. The same official agenda shows Tyus sponsoring Resolution 122 seeking audited financial statements concerning Homer G. Phillips.
The competing approaches contributed to the confrontation.
The underlying problems affecting senior residents have subsequently risked being overshadowed by the political fight.
Residents interviewed by the St. Louis American described longstanding maintenance problems and expressed frustration at being caught in the dispute between city officials.
Aldridge says rhetoric crossed a line
Aldridge has maintained that political disagreements do not justify Tyus’ language.
During Friday’s Board debate, he distinguished ordinary disrespect from telling someone that a bullet would be put in their head.
Aldridge has also pointed to the broader environment of political violence in the United States as a reason violent language directed at elected officials should be taken seriously.
Following the original incident, Aldridge said gun violence was personally significant to him because members of his family had died from it.
Tyus, meanwhile, maintains that the remark has been stripped of its intended context.
Those two positions remain fundamentally different: Aldridge considers the statement threatening, while Tyus insists it was figurative political speech intended to communicate distrust.
What the historical record actually establishes
A review of available records and archived reporting does not establish that Tyus has a documented history of making literal death threats.
That distinction matters.
The September statement is unusually explicit because it directly invokes putting a bullet in another elected official’s head. Police reviewed the statement, Aldridge sought a restraining order, Board leadership introduced a formal resolution, and the controversy ultimately resulted in Tyus’ censure.
Earlier incidents are different.
Tyus has used rhetoric about “war,” retaliation, and political enemies. She has engaged in heated public confrontations with Green, Aldridge and other political opponents. The St. Louis American previously accused her of threatening its publication, although the newspaper’s article did not disclose the substance of that alleged threat.
Those incidents establish a history of confrontational political rhetoric.
They do not, based on the records located by STL.News, establish a history of criminal threats or previous threats to kill colleagues.
Censure puts the Board’s disapproval on record
Censure is principally an institutional declaration of disapproval rather than removal from office.
That limitation is particularly significant in Tyus’ case.
Before Friday’s vote, Green acknowledged uncertainty about what additional practical punishment could accomplish. St. Louis Magazine reported that Green noted Tyus rarely uses her City Hall office or attends committee meetings in person, limiting the practical effect of sanctions involving committee assignments or City Hall privileges.
The result is a punishment carrying considerably more political and reputational significance than operational consequence.
Tyus remains the elected alderwoman representing Ward 12.
Aldridge remains the alderman representing Ward 14.
And the underlying Homer G. Phillips controversy remains unresolved by the censure itself.
For residents of the senior apartments, the larger question is whether city officials can move beyond the political confrontation and reach an agreement that addresses the building’s reported maintenance problems.
For the Board of Aldermen, Friday’s action puts something else permanently into the public record: a majority of Tyus’ colleagues determined that her words crossed a line serious enough to warrant formal institutional condemnation.
Tyus continues to disagree.
Editor’s note: STL.News distinguishes allegations and characterizations from established facts. Tyus denies threatening Aldridge and says her remarks were a wartime analogy. STL.News has not identified a public record showing that Tyus has been criminally charged over the Sept. 14 remarks. Earlier examples of confrontational rhetoric cited in this report should not be interpreted as criminal threats unless authorities or a court determine otherwise.
Read St. Louis Local News at STL.News
