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

[Shooter 2.5]

You don't believe the government's official story of what happened at Waco.

Like I said in the my last post. Now you have to justify murdering a police officer. Which is going to be?
The coroner lied?
The cops lied?
The investigator to the coroner's office lied?
His wife lied?
The reporters lied?
His friends lied?
His supervisor lied?

Everyone except you?

[tpaine]

My particular stance is that Matthews murdered a cop, and Abundy and I agree on that point. We also agree that supporting or justifying Matthews' actions does nothing to support the Constitution, and invites people to judge everyone who shared similar ideas by Matthews' actions. Abundy and I agree on that, too.
_________________________________

And here is where you disagree. Abundy #463:

"My point is that there is a lot of flamethrowing on these Massillon threads - to the point that even-tempered individuals are starting to sound like the ADL and it concerns me that when I post a basic fact like "How can a citizen properly exercise their authority (that's right, I said authority) as a member of the Government if they don't understand the document, their rights and their responsibilities?" that those same even-tempered people will lump me in with this dead idiot and feel that someone should come and take my firearms.
If we don't know that we have a right against self-incrimination, how are we to exercise it?
If we don't know that we can refuse to allow a search of our homes and person, how can we prevent unwarranted intrusions into our privacy.
What kind of world is the ADL advocating, 'cause it sure as hell isn't a Constitutional one."
- #463 - abundy

[RGSpincich]

That movie wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be.

I enjoyed it. That was before I heard it was no good, though.

[exodus]

To: tpaine; Abundy
"...If people who consider themselves Constitutionalists would cut Matthews loose and accept the fact that he's a murderer, then they would gain more credibility and respect.

Matthews was no Constitutionalist. Matthews was a nut, and anybody who sticks up for him by accusing the police of some sort of coverup, is also a nut--a frothy-mouthed, babble-talking NUT!..."
# 500 by wimpycat

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

"...If people who consider themselves Christian would cut Koresh loose and accept the fact that he's a cultist, then they would gain more credibility and respect.

Koresh was no Christian. Koresh was a nut, and anybody who sticks up for him by accusing the government of some sort of coverup, is also a nut--a frothy-mouthed, babble-talking NUT!..."

[wimpycat]

We're talking about Matthews---YOO-HOOOOOOOO! Wipe the froth from your mouth and start talking sense, and maybe more people would listen to you.

[wimpycat]

YOOOO-HOOOOO!!! We're talking about Matthews the frothy-mouthed, babble-talking nut and his apologists!! At least I am. If you're talking about anything else besides that, then go talk to someone who gives a sh*t. I'm talking about Matthews and his butt-buddies.

[Abundy]

WC, I think the point tpaine is trying to make is that based on the portions of my post tpaine quoted, you are a razor's breadth away from lumping me in as one of Matthew's "butt buddies."

tpaine, have we actually agreed on someting?

;^)

[ChuckHam]

Jim,
Please stop this once and for all. Think about the hay liberals are going to make out of the comments on the threads regarding this incident. It's totally over the line now that post after post from the fringes is basically defending the murder of Officer Taylor on so-called constitutional grounds. The tin-foil theories of lying police officers just add on as well. We don't need this kind of attitude on this site IMHO.

[Abundy]

Koresh was no Christian. Koresh was a nut, and anybody who sticks up for him by accusing the government of some sort of coverup, is also a nut--a frothy-mouthed, babble-talking NUT!..."

A..hem.

Actually, a Christian can acknowledge that Koresh was a kook while also acknowledging that the government violated the rights of the Branch Davidians, violated police procedure and committed criminal acts by falsifying the search warrant affidavit. It doesn't make the Christian a kook.

OTOH, attempting to create a conspiracy between police officers from different police agencies that responded to a high-speed chase (that they could never have known would occur) that culminated in the suspect murdering a police officer before being killed by the police does sort of qualify you as either a kook or just blinded by your ideology. Your attempt at creating an analogy between the Waco murders and the murder of this police officer fails on numerous points.

Sorry.

[Abundy]

Jim, Please stop this once and for all. Think about the hay liberals are going to make out of the comments on the threads regarding this incident. It's totally over the line now that post after post from the fringes is basically defending the murder of Officer Taylor on so-called constitutional grounds. The tin-foil theories of lying police officers just add on as well. We don't need this kind of attitude on this site IMHO.

Mr. Ham, I think we are doing just fine debunking any theories about police conspiracy. Stifling the free speech serves no purpose other than to add grist to the conspiracy mill and make us no better than the liberals who are notoriously afraid to debate issues. Stifling free speech normally occurs when the facts are not on your side - and in this case the facts are most certainly on the side of the police.

Your inflamatory characterizations also appear to violate posting policy, do not contribute towards meaningful dialouge and do little to establish your intellectual creditials.

[exodus]

You don't believe the government's official story of what happened at Waco.

Why do you accept without question that a 61 year old, 300 pound man could, under fire, outmaneuver 6 policemen barricaded behind their cars?
# 469 by exodus

To: exodus
Like I said in the my last post.
Now you have to justify murdering a police officer.
Which is going to be?

The coroner lied? The cops lied?
The investigator to the coroner's office lied?
His wife lied? The reporters lied? His friends lied?
His supervisor lied? Everyone except you?

# 501 by Shooter 2.5
*************************

What is wrong with you? I've read your responses before, and always thought you paid attention to facts. Can you name even one fact that I've revealed? I wasn't there, and I don't claim to have secret knowledge un-available to everyone else. I base my theory on publicly available news stories, just as you do.

The facts in this story don't fit the story the investigators are giving us. With the facts we've been given, I see no way to explain how officer Taylor got shot in the butt.

[ChuckHam]

Normally I would agree with you but since when does the DU or other anticonservative elements on the web really use the posts that "debunk" the tin-foil theories going around on these threads? Answer: they don't, they use the posts that make the most hay for their purposes.

As for debate of the issues here, there are none to debate regarding the murder of Officer Taylor. He was murdered and no amount of debate changes that fact. Also, no amount of debate justifies it either. I would suggest the consitutionality of traffic stops and the like should be debated on a thread where a police officer and his murderer are not the subject. Get it?

-

[wimpycat]

First of all, Abundy, I'm not lumping you in with Matthews and his ilk. I should have thought that was obvious from my earlier posts. We don't have to agree on every issue.

Second of all, Jim, I second ChuckHam's remarks regarding those who are defending the murder of Officer Taylor on so-called Constitutional grounds. It's downright embarrassing to see these FReepers hem and haw and justify Matthews' actions. I didn't think FReepers took too kindly to cop-killers. Thank God most don't, but even a few is enough to make anyone doing any type of research on the subject paint us all as cop-killer sympathizers. The Constitution is one thing. Murdering a cop over a speeding ticket is quite another. Trying to justify murdering a cop over a speeding ticket is reprehensible beyond just about anything I've ever seen on FR.

[exodus]

"...Koresh was a nut, and anybody who sticks up for him by accusing the government of some sort of coverup, is also a nut--a frothy-mouthed, babble-talking NUT!..."
# 504 by exodus

To: exodus
We're talking about Matthews---YOO-HOOOOOOOO! Wipe the froth from your mouth and start talking sense, and maybe more people would listen to you.
# 505 by wimpycat
*************************

Are you saying that the government was justified in their decision to murder the Davidians?

[tpaine]

WC, I think the point tpaine is trying to make is that based on the portions of my post tpaine quoted, you are a razor's breadth away from lumping me in as one of Matthew's "butt buddies."
tpaine, have we actually agreed on someting?
__________________________________
You got it!

-- But of course, - wimpy does not.

[wimpycat]

Listen up, Matthews' bum boy, I'm going to say it one more time. This thread is about Matthews' the cop-killing wacko.

[habs4ever]

According to you, the facts don't fit.Are you a seasoned crime investigator? Just what gives you the expertise to say the facts don't fit? because you can't figure it out means that it can't possibly be true?

Or is it more likely that you refuse you see what's in front of your face when its much more interesting to bring a Waco analogy into the mix.

[Shooter 2.5]

The facts in this story don't fit the story the investigators are giving us. With the facts we've been given, I see no way to explain how officer Taylor got shot in the butt.

The fact is that Mathews told his wife that he was going to shoot a police officer. The fact is that Mathews fired a CZ52 7.62 pistol and shot Officer Taylor in the butt and the bullet traveled to his aorta, killing him. Those are the undesputed facts. Any other theories, conspiracies, tall tales, rumors, EXCUSES that you can dream up won't ever change those facts.

[exodus]

To: Abundy; Jim Robinson; ChuckHam
First of all, Abundy, I'm not lumping you in with Matthews and his ilk. I should have thought that was obvious from my earlier posts. We don't have to agree on every issue.

Second of all, Jim, I second ChuckHam's remarks regarding those who are defending the murder of Officer Taylor on so-called Constitutional grounds. It's downright embarrassing to see these FReepers hem and haw and justify Matthews' actions. I didn't think FReepers took too kindly to cop-killers. Thank God most don't, but even a few is enough to make anyone doing any type of research on the subject paint us all as cop-killer sympathizers.

The Constitution is one thing. Murdering a cop over a speeding ticket is quite another. Trying to justify murdering a cop over a speeding ticket is reprehensible beyond just about anything I've ever seen on FR.
# 514 by wimpycat

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

Regulating traffic is a legitimate, Constitutional function of government.That's not the issue.

The facts we've been given don't fit the story the investigation has given us.

There is no way a 61 year old, 300 pound man jumped out of a moving car, and then, under fire from 6 officers, managed to outmanoveured those officers to get behind officer Taylor.

Ever hear of "trial balloons" in regard to official explanations? I've just found a new story. It's even worse than the story we've been working with.

Check this out--

"...(Matthews) sped into a construction site parking lot and, with his auto still spinning around the lot, fired through the window with a Czech-made semi-automatic pistol, killing patrolman Eric Taylor, 31, a four-year veteran of the force and the father of two pre-school children..."

Tell me, how did officer Taylor get shot in the buttocks while sitting in a car during a running gun battle? Was he mooning Matthews?