Be careful who you honk at, they might just shoot at you. Police in St. Louis, Missouri are still trying to figure this one out. They aren’t trying real hard though. All they know, so far, is what an off duty officer told them. That’s because he’s the only one talking. He’s also the one who got shot at. Even so, he’s not the one who got hit.
One officer says it all
Just about a week ago, on June 21, an off duty officer of the St. Louis PD was minding his own business as a civilian when he causally honked his horn at “a group that was blocking the street.”
He didn’t know that he’d rolled up on one of those Black Lives Matter™ riots which pop up at the drop of a verdict. The motorist just wanted to clear the roadway so he could get through, instead someone started blasting.
Police are quick to point out that this particular incident “appears to be in no way influenced by” the officer or his “line of work.” The only reason it matters is because he’s the only witness and in general the word of cops in court is still considered reliable.
The really interesting part of the story is that there happens to be a victim. At least it seems that way. The only problem is that the victim is playing Johnnie Tight Lips. He don’t know nothing. “Shot? Was I shot?”
The incident happened around 10:40 p.m. and according to the off-duty 42-year-old St. Louis Police officer, he was “in his personal vehicle within the 3500 block of Birmingham Avenue.”
That’s when he “came up on a group congregating in the street and blocking the roadway.” After honking his horn he “then heard a myriad of gunshots ring out.” That was unexpected but police are trained to think fast.
Did not return fire
With lead whistling past his ears, the “officer exited his vehicle, and saw a suspect directly firing shots at him.” Luckily, the patrol veteran “was not struck by said gunfire.” Knowing that he’s in the middle of BLM central, the lawman knew better than to “return fire on the suspect.”
He carefully took note of a description though and reported “the assailant that fired at him as being a male aged between 18 to 20-years-old.” That should narrow down the field of suspects.
Police are convinced that the 32-year-old man who “suffered a gunshot wound at around the same time in the same general area” was collateral damage from the shooting spree.
The officer didn’t shoot him but the “victim was reportedly found suffering from the sustained wound at an adjacent alleyway.” No matter how hard police grilled the victim he’s not being very helpful. It isn’t that the man isn’t talking, just that he won’t tell the same story twice in a row.
According to police, the injured bystander has given “numerous inconsistent accounts regarding the circumstances of his sustained wound to his lower body.” They took him to the hospital anyway and patched him up. Last word on him is that he’s in stable condition.
Police have no clue who fired the shots. They don’t even have the suspicion of who a suspect might be, so nobody is anywhere close to being arrested for shooting at the officer. The victim isn’t pressing charges. He wasn’t even there, he insists.