I don't know what's more tortured here: the pedestrian the cop hit with his car, or the language contorted and mangled to avoid saying the cop hit a pedestrian with his car.
I like how it notes that the officers returned to the scene without bothering to mention that the officer ever left (or, as a less charitable reading would suggest, fled).
"His vehicle was struck by an unknown object"?
Meaning the guy he ran over at speed? GTFO.
But really, tell us what he was wearing. Dark clothes? Oh he was asking to get run over
"The bullets fired by the police were intercepted by an unknown object. Upon further investigation following apprehension of the suspect officers discovered an individual in the vicinity who appeared to have sustained a small diameter laceration to the chest."
Reminiscent of the Minneapolis Police Department's initial statement re_George Floyd, titled:
"Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction"
And wow - the one local news station that managed to get the headline right...
Has already deleted the article and replaced it with one that contorts itself to blame the car.
Thank the supernatural for the ghost struck the patrol car to alert police that an 'unknown and never ever identifiable motorists struck a pedestrian instants before the cop passed.
Eventually there will just be two different stories. One about an injury to a person, the other about an officer's car being damaged and needing blood washed off it