Officer Involved - Jeffrey Schopp
something's missing...
This case is odd.
A pursuit involving multiple police officers over a minor infraction ends with the suspect taking his own life.
Something’s missing…
What Happened
On December 3, 2024 at 1515 hrs an officer spotted Jeffrey Schopp (33) cross a street without using a crosswalk. The officer attempted to stop Mr. Schopp, who was carrying a backpack.
Mr. Schopp immediately and politely questioned if he was being detained. The officer informed him that he was being detained and explained the reason why. Mr. Schopp then apologized for his actions.
He then refused to follow the officer’s instructions, dropped his backback, and ran on foot from the officer.
The officer engaged in foot pursuit through a field and into a drainage ditch. The officer advised Mr. Schopp that he would use force if he failed to stop and threatened a Taser deployment.
Other officers arrived on scene and attempted to set a perimeter around Mr. Schopp.
Mr. Schopp was observed by the initial officer holding a firearm - as he ran towards other arriving officers.
Use of Force
In response to that threat - the officer fired 14 shots at Mr. Schopp.
As he was taking rounds from police - Mr. Schopp used his own gun to end his life.
During the investigation, a .22 caliber handgun was recovered from the scene
Law
The law that governs police use of deadly force - Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.51:
(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.
The law that governs defense of a third person - PENAL § 9.33. Defense of Third Person:
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
Policy
Like many major municipalities, San Antonio does have a foot pursuit policy. It reads:
“When engaging in a foot pursuit of a suspect, officers must exercise sound judgment, carefully consider the facts, and weigh the seriousness of the offense against the consequences of jeopardizing the safety of others.”
Analysis
Mr. Schopp actively resisted arrest by fleeing from law enforcement during a lawful detention. The officer provided clear instructions - as well as force warnings in an attempt to gain compliance.
Mr. Schopp then armed himself with a firearm - as he approached other officers who were arriving on scene to assist.
Therefore, it was reasonable for the officer to believe that Mr. Schopp posed an immediate threat of death or great bodily injury at the time that deadly force was utilized.
Also, the actions of the officer would be in line with the defense of a third person law.
The use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and within the law.
Whether or not the officer violated the “foot pursuit” policy is another, much less important issue.
The detention was within the law and will be up to the officer to explain his actions to internal investigators. Also, the action/inaction of the Sergeant on duty who allowed the pursuit to continue will be examined.
It is quite possible that the actions of the officer to engage in the initial foot pursuit were within department policy and in accordance with training.
Questions
Now that we have established that the OIS was legal and (likely) within department policy - there is still something missing…
The officer stopped and detained Mr. Schopp for crossing the street without using a crosswalk. This is a minor infraction and rarely enforced by police officers.
Did the officer have another reason to detain Mr. Schopp?
Did the officer suspect that Mr. Schopp was involved in other criminal activity?
Mr. Schopp fled on foot after he was informed that the reason for the detention was the crosswalk violation.
Why would he flee in order to avoid what is likely, at worst, a citation?
Mr. Schopp dropped his backpack before he fled on foot.
What was in the backpack?
The officer engaged in a foot pursuit, other officers joined, a perimeter was being established, for an interaction that started with with a Crosswalk violation.
Was this approved by a Sergeant?
Is it typical to expend this many resources to to apprehend a Crosswalk violator?
As Mr. Schopp was taking rounds from police officers - he pulled out his own gun and ended his life.
Why?
I am not alleging a Livelsberger-type conspiracy, but, something is missing here…
Final Thoughts
If I had to make an educated guess - I would say that Mr. Schopp had a felony warrant out for his arrest or something incriminating in his backpack1.
And the officer was pro-active, alert, and could tell that something wasn’t quite right - even though all he technically had was a bullshit crosswalk violation.
*Obviously there was something else nefarious going on and the officer just somehow knew it.
This is a skill that cannot be taught in a classroom. We just have to wonder if the politicians who manage police departments are going to force out these types of cops or actively recruit them to protect their communities.
It’s that, or he was in the throes of a mental health crisis.
I'm a fan of the broken windows Theory, to a point. Usually when officers start making stops for people jaywalking or failing to use a crosswalk it's because there's an issue in that area. Maybe it's pedestrians being hit by cars, maybe it's cars crashing to avoid pedestrians, or maybe it's because of prostitution and drug dealing in the area and those people running back and forth across the road to do their thing. These are the type of things that the broken windows Theory wants to look for because in certain areas where there is high crime, drug sales, prostitution etc, it's these little things that if they are allowed to continue without police intervention or attention, they can snowball into larger issues.
In my former jurisdiction each Sergeant was required to write up and manage a platoon operation once a month. It was supposed to last for a minimum of a week but could go longer if necessary and they were provided whatever tools were necessary and available for their operation. On many occasions those operations were designed and implemented in the high crime areas and on several occasions it was targeting the prostitutes and the drug dealers who ran back and forth in front of traffic ignoring the crosswalks and The Pedestrian crosswalk lights so they could sell their wares. Stopping someone allowed us to get their identification and run their names and it often resulted in warrant arrests, arrest for possession of narcotics, arrest for possession of weapons etc. Conversely, other similar operations were near school zones where students often simply ran across the road ignoring the crosswalks to get to school or to a convenience store across the street from their school and it had resulted in numerous accidents and at least one student killed. We would conduct Zero Tolerance operations at both of those locations albeit for completely different reasons and I would call them very successful.
Whatever the reasons were that the officers were conducting enforcement in these areas, this was a legal and Justified stop on the subject and Illinois versus Wardlow has made it clear that in high crime areas a subject fleeing on the sight of a police officer is reasonable suspicion to pursue that person and detain them. Yes, I know this isn't exactly that but this subject was being legally detained for an infraction and he fled from police which would give them the right to pursue him. Policies aside, and quite frankly this policy is vague at best and doesn't seem to prohibit anything it simply says that officers need to be aware of the reason for the pursuit. I personally think it's wrong headed to tell officers they can't pursue someone on foot for a misdemeanor particularly the way this one ended up. The subject was obviously armed with a firearm and engaged police officers in a shootout before he killed himself. So if policies expressly prohibited chasing after someone who you had stopped for only a misdemeanor, you would have an armed suspect running around somewhere in the neighborhood. Hell, even the governor of California is now chastising the city of Oakland for having a restrictive vehicle Pursuit policy that has resulted in higher crime rates and everybody running even for the most minor crime. I mean, those of us who actually worked the road predicted this back in the 90s when agencies were starting to enforce these no Pursuit policies. I know in my jurisdiction it resulted in everyone running and in fact a vehicle theft gang that would engage our officers in Pursuits just for the fun of it because they knew we'd have to break it off as soon as they hit the gas. 20 to 30 cars a night being stolen and run through different jurisdictions trying to get police to chase them at least for a block or two. All of that because they knew there were restrictive Pursuit policies. But I digress. This was a legal stop based on the violation of either an ordinance or a state law, the suspect was legally detained and he fled, officers pursued him and he was killed when he decided to draw a firearm and engage officers in a gun battle and then shoot himself apparently.
Good breakdown and great questions. It will be interesting to find out more and you did a good job here. Thank you for updating us on this strange one and please keep following up. There is more here and your objectivity is appreciated. There is definitely something off about the guy even in his mannerisms and the bookbag drop is strange. Did the officer know what was in there or Sgt and that is why pursuit was necessary? It's so strange that he wouldn't just take his lumps with the ticket, even if jaywalking citations are gauche.