Constitutionalist blames police for fatal shootout (shooting in Massillon, Ohio)

The Canton Repository (Ohio) ^ | August 13, 2002 | ED BALINT

[ResistorSister]

CANTON — Dwight Class said it didn’t have to end this way for Donald Matthews and the Massillon police officer whom he shot and killed.

Class said Patrol Officer Eric Taylor and the other officers and state trooper who were part of a fatal police chase Friday night did not have the authority to pull Matthews over on a traffic stop.

Or to pursue and attempt to arrest him.

Class attends the meetings on constitutionality that Matthews used to lead before he died in the shootout with police that started with a traffic stop on Route 21 in Doylestown and ended at First Street NW and Cherry Road in Massillon.

Matthews was president of the National Constitutionalist Academy and studied the U.S. Constitution. He held weekly meetings at the Denny’s Restaurant on Tuscarawas Street W in Perry Township. About 15 to 22 people usually attend, Class said. He said Matthews also held weekly meetings in Cleveland.

STRONG BELIEFS. Dwight Class and his wife, Sárra,
stand outside Reed Funeral Home after attending
calling hours for Donald Matthews of Jackson
Township on Monday afternoon. Police shot and
killed Matthews after he led police on a chase and shot and
killed Massillon Police Officer Eric Taylor on Friday
night. Class said the shootout wouldn’t have occurred
if the state trooper who pulled Matthews over on a
traffic stop had shown proof that he had an oath of
office and a bond. Repository / Michael S. Balash

Class attended calling hours for Matthews at Reed Funeral Home on Monday. Visitation was held from 3 to 5 and 6 to 9 p.m.

The first session appeared to be sparsely attended. Roughly 12 to 20 vehicles were parked in the funeral home lot. Visitors trickled in during the two hours. Family members and friends occasionally gathered in the parking lot or near the entrance of the funeral home.

Class spoke strongly about the events that unfolded Friday when a state trooper pulled Matthews over for driving 12 mph over the speed limit.

If the trooper could have produced proof that he had taken an oath of office and had a bond, “it would have been a nice, simple conversation (and Matthews would have said,) ‘I recognize you as an officer now.’ ”

That would have prevented the gunshots, Class said.

“I don’t think it had to have happened at all,” the Canton resident said, citing constitutional issues.

However, his wife, Sárra Class, said Taylor “should have been shot.”

Dwight Class disagreed and told his wife to stop making the comment.

“I thought he was a good man,” he said of Matthews. “He tried to get things done; he tried to get them done peacefully. That’s what he taught in class.”

Matthews taught other constitutionalists “to get the ‘paper trail started’ ” by filing cases in court, Class said.

Class said he has filed lawsuits over traffic violations involving himself and Rodney Class. One of the cases involves New Philadelphia police, he said.

Dwight Class also said he’s filed a lawsuit in federal court in Akron over alleged civil rights violations.

He said he’s planning to take legal action this week against Massillon Municipal Judge Edward J. Elum in the Ohio Supreme Court. That complaint involves a warrant issued against Class — he said he doesn’t know what for.

Dwight Class, 51, said he retired after working 30 years at the Timken Co.

He gave a reporter a “notice” of “civil rights violations by Ohio police and (the Ohio Highway Patrol).”

“Ohio is a home-rule state,” it says. “Chances are that if the brothers and sisters are stopped by any local police, they do not have an oath of office or bond to hold a position as a civil servant.”

Without the oath or bond, an officer doesn’t have the power to arrest a citizen, Class says.

Standing outside the funeral home, he said, “We don’t have a police force in the state of Ohio; we have private, at-will employees.”

A bumper sticker on a pickup truck at the calling hours carried the slogan: “I love my country but I fear my elected officials.”

Class said he expects Friday’s incident to boost attendance at the National Constitutionalist Academy meetings.

But not everyone who attended the calling hours shared Class’s point of view.

John Newlund, 49, of East Liverpool, said Matthews was his wife’s brother-in-law.

“He gave me a card one time,” Newlund said of the academy, “and I just blew it off. I believe you should pay your taxes.”

Newlund said he would “absolutely” pull over for a traffic stop.

“He should have stopped,” he said of Matthews. “It was only a speeding ticket — it happens thousands of times a day.

“You go by the law, the law of the land.”

You can reach Repository writer Ed Balint at (330) 580-8315 or e-mail:

ed.balint@cantonrep.com

[NeoCaveman]

Traffic stops, fireworks - these guys really know how to pick issues that resonate with the general population...

Hey if I want to blow through stop signs or speed or drive blind drunk it's my right....(/sarcasm)

[Dane]

Dane, no one here is defending Mattews.

Wow, you must really beleive that marijuana smoke wafts over cyberspace.

Sorry, it doesn't.

Oh BTW, lighting up your BIC doesn't show up either.

[Dead Corpse]

Dane? Consider the "Abuse" button pushed. I have had enough of your insipid attacks.

[dcwusmc]

Nope. Could care less about doobies. That was an example of an out of control FedGov. Also the hypocracy of some posters here. They embrace the 10th amendment when it suits their fancy but when it comes to such things as I have pointed out, they seem never to have heard of it.

I will be happy when the Bill of Rights is once again given much more than lip service and when FedGov is slapped back into its Constitutional Restraints and becomes less than one-tenth its current illegitimate size. When we can go for weeks or months without hearing that the prez or the congress or gooberment did this or that because what they do is not newsworthy, as ALL they do is keep outsiders from harming us and keep the predators within from harming others. That's ALL I want from gooberment, whether it be local, state or fedgov. No more. The rest I can do for myself or get together with friends and acquaintences to achieve...

I specifically DON'T wanna hear from or about the Prez as if he were our emperor. He's just an employee... nothing more. I don't wanna hear all these bogus pronouncements from various gooberment officials. I wanna be left alone by them.

[Kevin Curry]

So by your lights, the Founders were terrorists.

Nah. Everbody knows they were dopers. They were sodomizers and aficianados of fine Italiam porn, too. Yep. They were the libertarians of their day, carefully crafting a Constitution that would protect the high-minded libertarians of today.

< /sarcasm off >

[wardaddy]

Recognize these series of threads for what they primarily are: Ad Hominem attacks on ALL who believe in a limited government of enumerated powers.

The funny thing here is that OPH (whom I like btw) is arguably more libertarian(hedonisticly) than I'll ever be nowadays. I'm certainly much more culturally conservative. However, the irony for me is that due to my own memories of LEO excesses in the past, I am probably closer to your view on RKBA and what rightists like myself call JBT issues.

A further contradiction however is that normally libertarians depise hard right conservatives like me because we usually believe in G-d's authority and are at times willing to cede personal liberty to the state if we think it is in the interest of self preservation(serious war for example). Of course folks like me are generally ambivalent about the WOD at best and not pro-dope legalization.

As you can see, this whole conflict you are alluding to is rather complex between Libertarian/Constitutionalism and Conventional Conservatism whether paelo or neo.

That is why I have simply for one only expressed my sympathy for the dead man and his family as well as the shooter's wife. I have also lamented the effect it has had on our forum and the rather bad light it will undoubtedly shed on all of us if only by association.

Shooting that poor cop was dead wrong in my view and cannot be rationalized from what I've gleaned from all the info I've seen. And, it is apparent that Matthews more or less telegraphed his intentions on more than one occasion. FR is full of blowhards always going on and on about "BY G-D!!..WHAT THEY ARE GONNA DO!!!, but in this case I think reasonable observers could deduce that he indeed was not bluffing. The fact that he felt compelled to essentially murder a small town LEO over a traffic stop indicates to me that he was simply not right in the head or just pure dogass mean. Which?, I can't say.

[exodus]

"...They did this under the pretense of enforcing an unconstitutional law which states that if an individual has over $50.00 in fireworks in their possession, they are presumed (thought crime) to have this for sale..."

To: exodus
Which portion(s) of the Constitution are violated by this particular firecracker law? Hmmmmm? You can ramble on and dump this BS all over FR all you want, but unless you can cite the specific provisions in the Constitution that are violated, then you're just spinning your wheels and not proving anything at all.
# 160 by wimpycat
*************************

I did not dump this on FreeRepublic, wimpycat.

The terrorist general_re provided that link, took it out of context, and asked me to explain what I meant by what he assumed.

Now you're taking it out of context, and asking me what I meant. I didn't say it, wimpycat. That is from the website of general_re's deceased terrorist leader, Don Matthews.

I'll answer anyway, wimpycat.

The big one is under the right to own, and keep, your own property, wimpycat. That would fall under the government was not given the power to take my stuff section of the 9th Amendment.

The "thought crime" of being assumed to be an evil Pyrotechnics dealer, a perceived danger to the health of our poor children, whom we must protect from all harm.

Though our precious children are more valuable than civilization itself, more important than anything except the environment, actually punishing a citizen for something they might do violates the 4th Amendment protections against "against unreasonable searches and seizures...but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..."

There was no probable cause to assume that a convention of licensed Pyrotechnicians got together for the sole purpose of selling deadly sparklers to innocent children.

The seizure also violated the 5th Amendment protection to not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Due process of law would require evidence and a conviction before punishment. There were no charges filed, but the property, $200,000 worth, was seizured anyway.

Amendment 7 was also violated. The conventioneers, each and every one of them, were punished for a crime they didn't commit. Their 7th Amendment quarantee to a trial by jury for the crime they were accused of was denied. The $20 requirement to qualify for jury trial was exceedingly exceeded.

Amendment 8 was violated. $200,000 for a crime you didn't do, and weren't even accused of, qualifies as an "excessive" fine, and even as cruel and unusual punishment.

Amendment 14 was violated. These men had their property taken without due process of law, and were denied the equal protection of the law, based only upon their possession of fireworks, which was nothing more nor less than the tools of their trade.

That's enough for now. Remember too, the Amendments weren't necessary to protect the rights and privilages that the government violated in this case. It was common knowledge during the discussions over the Bill of Rights that the Bill of Rights wasn't anything but reinforcement to the protections already in the body of the Constitution.

Now people like you, who can't be bothered to read the Constitutiuon, have to ask others what it means. Then you find ways to ignore what you're told because what I say can't be true, our wonderful government would never abuse us, and would never lie to us.

Nevermind, wimpycat. It's not important. You are safe. You are loved. Go back to sleep, little one.

[Kevin Curry]

Nope. Could care less about doobies.

Uh, yeah. Right.

[justshe]

******Are you merely trying to elicit such a response to further a senseless debate in which two dead men are merely the excuse for tearing my FreeRepublic apart? ******

Debating whether or not Mathews was anything other than an extremist who murdered an innocent cop, thus widowing the cop's wife and leaving his two children fatherless is an 'excuse' for tearing YOUR FreeRepublic apart?

If I may ask, who appointed you room monitor to decide that only YOUR debate is worthy of consideration?

[justshe]

ROFL!!!!

[american spirit]

Well just how stupid is it to believe that we want a fed/gov or any other entity to operate under the presumption that "if it's not prohibited, it's allowed" as you so eloquently stated earlier. Your interpretation leaves so much room for abuse by those in power it's not even funny. According to your line of thinking national health insurance is not prohibited by law so by rights the Clinton's should've been able to push through Hillarycare (to the detriment of all). I guess the next time Congress should step out of the way because we all know the bureaucraps know what's best for all of us.

[Kevin Curry]

Hitting the abuse button? Couldn't take anymore "insipid" attacks, so you've fired an abuse-bullet at your tormentor Dane?

[RabidBartender]

It was post 100 by Poobah that quoted the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Hillary could push her health care through, but it would have to be ratified by the states.

Just thought I'd point out the "if it's not prohibited, it's allowed" you were quoting was not the complete quote. "If it's not prohibited by the United States, it is allowed by the states (or the people)"

This wasn't an attack (don't want to get caught up in the insults and such), just pointing that out.

[dcwusmc]

And one day you'll take that last step and someone won't stomach any more of your bile either. I am surprised it hasn't happened yet. Maybe there are a few more folks around that have strong stomachs than I would have thought considering some of your bs comments. And YOU are one that I thought of who's all in favor of the 10th amendment when it suits your purposes but if a State has notions that it can do something which is prohibited to FedGov but not necessarily to it, then FedGov is incensed and so are you. How sad for you.

[general_re]

The terrorist general_re provided that link, took it out of context...

How do you take a link out of context, Sparky?

...and asked me to explain what I meant by what he assumed.

You must have me confused with the voices in your head - you posted to me first, Sparky. I never asked you any such thing.

It's a hell of a thing when I'm a "terrorist" for pointing out that shooting cops at traffic stops is the mark of a crackpot and a criminal, and the cop-shooter is held up as a "patriot".

Whatever.

[american spirit]

No, I was just referring to his post (#145) where he made that simplistic statement. Actually, exodus in #134 tore his argument to shreds and I agree that luckily Congress came to the rescue on Hillarycare, I'm not sure wimpy understands that.

[exodus]

To: Maelstrom
"...These types are fast becoming terrorists. And they aren't Constitutionalists because they don't follow the US Constitution. They follow their own constitution..."
# 17 by AppyPappy

*************************

Wow!! Clinton was right, then. Anyone who can quote relevent sections of the Constitution is a terrorist. Scuse, me, I've got to go burn some evidence.

Before I go, I want to offer my theory as to why our nation is in such horrible danger. It's those Founding Fathers, you see. They didn't just read the Constitution, and sit around and discuss what it said for hours at a time, they actually wrote it!!

Then those immoral old-timers made copies, and forced innocent school children to read the evil document, too. Over 150 years of terrorist indoctrination! Is it any wonder that we're in so much danger?

Thank goodness ben Laden doesn't have copies of the Constitution. We wouldn't stand a chance.

[exodus]

"It's a hell of a thing when I'm a "terrorist" for pointing out that shooting cops at traffic stops..."
# 255 by general_re

*************************

No, you're a terrorist because of the same reasoning that the fireworks conventioneers are members of Matthews' organization. I explained that.

You said that since Matthews had a story about the confiscation of their fireworks on his website, the Pyrotechies were friends and co-conspirators.

I said that since you posted a link to their website, you must be a friend of Matthews, and a member of his organization. Equivalent reasoning, general_re.

It's sarcasm, my friend. Everybody persists in taking thinks out of context, so I gave up and decided to have a little fun.

[wimpycat]

If it's not prohibited, it's allowed.

That means that the states can pass any law that does not violate the Constitution. The people elect the state legislature and city governments, who in turn make laws governing the state and the city. Therefore, the people can pass laws relating to driver's licenses, traffic, etc. as well as fines for having too many firecrackers.

Your interpretation leaves so much room for abuse by those in power it's not even funny.

The Constitution puts limits on governments, but not as many limits as you seem to think. That's why it's important to elect people who will do their best to keep government limited.

According to your line of thinking national health insurance is not prohibited by law so by rights the Clinton's should've been able to push through Hillarycare (to the detriment of all).

WRONG! National health care is a bad idea and would be devastating to the country if it were passed, but, depending on how National health care legislation is written, if it didn't violate any of the bill of rights, or usurp the right of the states (the states' rights vs. centralized government is an ongoing debate, BTW) or the separation of powers, then it would NOT be un-Constitutional. Just think of Social Security. That's not un-Constitutional, either, whether you think it's a good idea or not. Medicaid (a form of nationalized health care) is also Constitutional, whether you think it's good or bad.

There are many laws and proposed laws that are bad ideas and very intrusive, and bad precedents (precedents are the hallmark of Common Law), but that doesn't make them un-Constitutional. There are lots of bad laws on the books that have passed Constitutional muster, and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it except lobby our lawmakers and elect the people who will repeal those laws. The Constitution is silent on many bad laws, but that is why we vote people in and out of office.

[Maelstrom]

This abhorrent, wholly indefensible, and pathology-driven murder ought to be and will be condemned by reasonable men and women everywhere. If you don't want to have that same scorn heaped upon you, cease trying to defend or explain this horrible act.

And therein is the disgusting horrid trick.

People like you have twisted defending the principle of limited government into a defense of this murderer.

That's pretty damn despicable.