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

[Maelstrom]

It's always been my Free Republic.

God gave me Jim Robinson and Jim Robinson gave me a place to speak freely.

I even bought a piece of it, or at least donated enough to take pride in what is here and what I have helped wrought.

Free Republic is as much mine as it is yours, I am just taking a bit more personal pride in it.

As for the debate part of your complaint, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[wimpycat]

I think it's rather simple, if you would only answer this question:

All politics aside: Matthews' actions on the night he refused his ID to the officer, fled the scene, and pulled a gun on the cops; those actions are common knowledge and are not in dispute.

Do you believe Matthews was justified in anything he did? If you answer a simple "No" and leave it at that, then I for one won't have another word to say to you. It's a real easy question and would clear up a lot of confusion if you would only answer it.

[general_re]

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

Find the post where I said that.

[american spirit]

I agree with a lot of things you said...finally. This debate has been good because it helps to draw out into the open many facts and misconceptions about our style of governance. I will add though there is no provision in the Constitution for executive orders by the Pres. or the Fed'l Reserve Bank yet we have both. My belief is that we've been saddled with "bad law" because of the ever evolving belief that it's a "living document" per the likes of the Clintons et al. At some point in the last 60-70 yrs. our country's course changed dramatically and the fed/gov assumed an inordinate amount of jurisdiction and power over WE THE PEOPLE. Some trace it to a combination of the Depression, New Deal, the bankruptcy of the USA, passage of a new act that created a framework for the administrative laws that control much of our political and economic system. (I'll find the name of that act and pass it on).

[Catspaw]

Note that we have gone from talking about a cop killer to the failure of the Constitution or deliver doobies to Hillarycare. Red herrings are a hallmark of thread hijackers.

[wimpycat]

Well good, I'm glad. Matthews took his own weirded out ideas about the Constitution to the ultimate conclusion--he killed a cop and was killed himself. If he had showed the proper respect for the Constitution, the cop would be alive, and Matthews would be stuck with a speeding ticket today. Now, everybody has their opinions over what's Constitutional and what isn't, but if everybody acted out their opinions to the extreme Matthews did, the Constitution would be dead, because chaos and anarchy would reign, not the rule of law. Someone said it earlier (I forget who), but Matthews was an anarchist, not a defender of the Constitution.

[rwfromkansas]

The man in question was also a Freeper......

[Copernicus]

We do not exist in a vacuum. Let's not forget this important fact. There are those who are wittingly and unwittingly bringing the stench of ill-repute on Free Republic and her members which can lead the the effective destruction of all the positive results accomplished through this wonderful website by FReepers.

Thank you for your comments. The lynch mob atmosphere that develops on these threads should be genuinely disturbing to all who witness it and possibly more than a few of the participants.

Best regards,

[Cultural Jihad]

The man in question was also a Freeper......

No. The man in question had a cookie on his computer, but being a FReeper is much more than that. The man disgraced the Constitution, disgraced the forum, and would clearly have been banned had he survived.

[rwfromkansas]

lol!

[Copernicus]

Spare us the sanctimonious "we don't really know" garbage.

At your earliest convenience please investigate minimum standards of objective inquiry. At one time in this country the Scientific Method was a required part of the High School Syllabus.

Reassure me and others reading this that you can recite the steps of the Scientific Method and connect those steps to an analysis of the tragic events in Ohio in a meaningful and objective way.

It will be a useful exercise for all concerned.

Best regards,

[wimpycat]

Quit changing the subject and tell us if you think Matthews was justified in what he is known to have done on the night in question; namely refusing to give the officer his ID, running from the cops, and pulling his gun on the cops. Those are facts that no one disputes. So was he justified or not?

[Cultural Jihad]

Do you believe Matthews was justified in anything he did? If you answer a simple "No" and leave it at that, then I for one won't have another word to say to you. It's a real easy question and would clear up a lot of confusion if you would only answer it.

No reply yet? Imagine attending a FReep protest with one of these self-annointed avengers of Sacco and Vanzetti, when the police come by and politely ask us to keep on the curb.

[Copernicus]

The former justifies insult to the Constitution over the murder of an officer. The latter tries to justify murdering an officer over insult to the Constitution. Reaganism this ain't.

Laughing out loud. Good job!

Best regards,

[rwfromkansas]

This is one thing I have thought about. Indeed, shouldn't Matthews taken the ticket but explain to the officer his Constititutional concerns....his principles along with that?

As far as I know, he is wrong in his view of the Constitution.

It seems to me that he should have realized that the officer is not an agent willfully destroying his rights, but someone "ignorant of the truth" of Matthews convictions. Why would he choose to kill instead of educate the officer of his views?

It was wrong.

[Maelstrom]

None of my posts are concerned with Matthews one way or the other. I am only concerned with the issue of limited government and how these deaths are being used to attack EVERYBODY who believes in it.

I have no idea if Matthews was justified in anything he did, perhaps if the complete transcript of the radio dispatches from that night were made available I could hold an opinion on the matter.

[Kevin Curry]

The former justifies insult to the Constitution over the murder of an officer.

Are you suggesting that a police officer who stops a motorist for speeding thereby "insults" the Constitution?

[wimpycat]

Did you apply the Scientific Method before you swallowed, lock, stock and barrel, the word of the Harnett County police on this article you posted HERE? Are you sure...do you KNOW FOR SURE, according to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, that the homeowner didn't just start blasting at the men who came to use his phone without provocation? ROFL! You are mighty selective with this Scientific Method BS you pretend is so important in the Matthews case.

The fact is, you accept the word of the police when it suits your agenda and you get all methodical and skeptical and "fair-minded" when a gunowner shoots and kills a cop. Spare us the hypocrisy and stick to your 2nd Amendment threads. Matthews' case isn't a 2nd Amendment issue anyway, but a nutcase, freakazoid psycho killing a cop issue.

[agitator]

I don't believe what I read in the newspaper. Not having first hand, or at least multiple 2nd hand accounts from those with no axe to grind, I have no comment on what transpired in this particular case. 

Anyway, we all know that the law only applies to government "subjects," not government itself. We all know that ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you work for government. We all know that the Constitution doesn't enumerate limited powers of government rather, government can do whatever it wants as long as the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit it. We all know that whatever the majority votes as ok is the law of the land. We all know that "the police power" is unlimited so long as there's a "compelling state interest." We all know that lawyers, judges, and politicians are as honest as the day is long and would never lie, cheat, steal, or misrepresent anything, after all, they know they're public servants in a position of public trust. We all know that every legislator has carefully read and considered every law they pass. We all know that every police officer has read the laws they enforce from their inception through current law to make absolutely sure that they are complying with their oath of office which specifies that they must uphold the Constitution. We all know that every law on the books is 100% beyond question because it never would have gotten there otherwise. We all know that there's no need for a state or federal archival service because nobody needs that moldy old paper anyway - it's just another wasteful government bureaucracy that ought to be disbanded. 

For those who aren't brain-dead, knee-jerk, statist, closet Nazi's, you might find something interesting in the link below. Otherwise, ignore it. By the way, I won't be responding to those who don't like what they find there. Take it or leave it or tell it to somebody who cares. I'm outta here.

http://taor.yvo.dynip.com/on_law.htm