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

[exodus]

Matthews would not have violated his beliefs by committing murder. He did not kill Officer Taylor.
- exodus

To: exodus
What in the heck are you doing, channeling Matthews? You are really losing it friend.
# 573 by Texasforever
*************************

I am giving my opinion, friend. Just like you did when you stated that Matthews both planned and committed murder.

Both are statements of opinion, not fact. One of us may be proven right eventually, but there is a very good chance that we will never know for sure what happened.

[exodus]

Why didn't Matthews kill the State Trooper the first time he was stopped? Why didn't Matthews kill the State Trooper when that same Trooper chased him down and stopped him a second time?

Matthews didn't plan on killing anyone. Matthews didn't kill anyone.
# 567 by exodus

To: exodus
You are asking why an adherent to a shallow rationalist ideology acted irrationally? Who knows? Maybe the coward had difficulty getting up the nerve to commit suicide by cop.
# 570 by Cultural Jihad
*************************

Matthews didn't belong to a shallow rationalist ideology, and he wasn't a coward.

However, if Matthews wanted to committ "suicide by cop," he would wait until more cops showed up, to give him a better chance at success. You have a good theory to explain Matthews' decision to not kill the State trooper.

Your theory doesn't explain the death of Officer Taylor, though. Matthews wouldn't consider murder, even if he planned to die at the same time.

Friendly fire is still the best explanation for Officer Taylor's death.

[exodus]

(my theory is) that Taylor was shot by "friendly fire" from one of the other officers. It was an accident, not a murder.
- exodus

To: exodus
Unless one of those cops shot Taylor with Mathews gun then you don't have a theory you are just hallucinating. But you do that a lot.
# 546 by Texasforever
*************************

No, I said that Taylor's death was an accident, not murder. A policeman picking up Matthews' gun and using it to kill Officer Taylor would be committing murder.

If one of the policemen had accidently shot Officer Taylor while trying to get Matthews, that would be an accident. After that, all it would take would be people in government lying to protect one of their own.

I'm not accusing the police and investigators of murder. I'm saying that there's a chance that if they had sworn an oath to uphold the law, they would be violating that oath by lying about who fired the shot that killed Officer Taylor.

[exodus]

To: Shooter 2.5; exodus; ChuckHam; Jim Robinson; wimpycat; tpaine
exodus -
Tomorrow, when you get into your car to go to work, buckle your seatbelt...then attempt to exit your vehicle via the passenger door as fast as you can while attempting to keep your body lower than your vehicle's dashboard and, once outside the vehicle, lower than the dashboard/bottom of the windows. That is how you exit a vehicle to the passenger side while attempting to remain concealed from an armed suspect.

You will see that the fastest way to do so, is to basically crawl across the seat and out the door onto the ground. You will also note that one cannot stand up inside a standard police vehicle.

So, when Matthews got the drop on Taylor and Taylor was forced to exit his vehicle through the passenger door Matthews fired while Taylor's back was turned towards him. The round struck Taylor in the buttocks and traveled up through his body, cutting the aorta and killing him..."
523 by Abundy

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

Do you know if Officer Taylor was drivng the car? Was he in the passenger seat? Someone was doubled up, because there were five cars and six policemen.

State Trooper Joseph Hershey stopped Matthews two times. After the second stop, Trooper Hershey reported that Matthews showed him a pistol, which I would assume to mean, "If you keep bothering me, I will shoot you." I'm sure Trooper Hershey read it the same way, and he would have told the other policemen.

Officer Taylor was said to be an "aggressive, but well-liked officer." I understand that as a man who was very conscious that his duty required the use of force, and that he was ready and willing to do his duty.

Assuming that Officer Taylor was in the passenger seat, he would know that he was following an armed man who had indicated that he was willing to shoot if he wasn't left alone. Taylor would have his gun, if not already drawn, in a position where he could draw it quickly.

I would have my gun in my hand, with the window rolled down. Especially so when I saw Matthews slow down to pull into the meadow. I would know that something was about to happen.

Then Matthews jumps out of his car, rolls, and begins firing.

If the driver of the police car made the mistake of turning to the left when the firing started, officer Taylor would be crazy to try to leave the car. He would stand a much better chance of survival if he stayed where he was, behind what little shelter his door offered, returning fire through the window. His backside would be protected.

If the driver did what he should and parked head-on to Matthews, both cops would open their doors and use the doors for cover. They wouldn't know that Matthews' bullets were designed for penetration instead of knock-down power. Taylor's backside would again be protected.

If officer Taylor were alone and driving the car, he would have to decide whether to park head-on and use the door for cover, or turn left and use the body of the car. I can see that he might decide to use the entire body of the car for cover instead of the door. That's the decision I would make.
In that case, I can see that when officer Taylor was exiting the car, his backside would be very vulnerable to the penetrating shells of Matthews' gun. A bullet could easily penetrate the passenger side door and hit Taylor in the buttocks. The angle seems a little tight to hit the aorta, but I can see that it would be possible.

My "friendly fire" theory is getting a little shaky.

[exodus]

To: wimpycat; Jim Robinson
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.
# 508 by ChuckHam

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

Ae we now supposed to filter our replies by what would be acceptable on a liberal website? That kind of thinking is what destroyed the "Contract with America," and cost the Republicans control of the Senate.

No one is saying that the death of officer Taylor was justified for any reason, especially not on Constitutional grounds.

"Tin-foil throries of lying police officers?" That's not beyond belief, ChuckHam. We do need "that kind of attitude." Skepticism of government is a heathy thing, and there are many examples of police corruption throughout the nation.

[Abundy]

That's why Matthews felt so strongly that police officers should be required to take an oath before they were given the authority to enforce the law. He wanted them to be accountable for their actions.

A..hem.

They are.

[Abundy]

Assuming that Officer Taylor was in the passenger seat, he would know that he was following an armed man who had indicated that he was willing to shoot if he wasn't left alone. Taylor would have his gun, if not already drawn, in a position where he could draw it quickly. He was driving, read the reports.

I would have my gun in my hand, with the window rolled down. Especially so when I saw Matthews slow down to pull into the meadow. I would know that something was about to happen. That would be a violation of most police departments own rules and regulations. It isn't safe to attempt to operate a vehicle while holding a loaded weapon and attempting to stop the vehicle while keeping your eyes on the suspect/suspect vehicle.

Then Matthews jumps out of his car, rolls, and begins firing.

If the driver of the police car made the mistake of turning to the left when the firing started, officer Taylor would be crazy to try to leave the car. He would stand a much better chance of survival if he stayed where he was, behind what little shelter his door offered, returning fire through the window. His backside would be protected.When the rounds from Matthews' CZ began to penetrate his vehicle (or he saw them penetrating other cruisers) he would have to put as much vehicle between himself and the shooter.

If the driver did what he should and parked head-on to Matthews, both cops would open their doors and use the doors for cover. They wouldn't know that Matthews' bullets were designed for penetration instead of knock-down power. Taylor's backside would again be protected.When the rounds started to penetrate the officers would all seek more cover.

If officer Taylor were alone and driving the car, he would have to decide whether to park head-on and use the door for cover, or turn left and use the body of the car. I can see that he might decide to use the entire body of the car for cover instead of the door. That's the decision I would make.

In that case, I can see that when officer Taylor was exiting the car, his backside would be very vulnerable to the penetrating shells of Matthews' gun. A bullet could easily penetrate the passenger side door and hit Taylor in the buttocks. The angle seems a little tight to hit the aorta, but I can see that it would be possible.

We all need to remember that we are looking at NEWS REPORTS, not the police reports. Further, an investigator from the coroner's office is telling us that the coroner recovered a bullet from the CZ from Officer Taylor's body and that Taylor was shot from behind. That is an OFFICIAL report, not a news report. It makes no difference whether the coroner himself, the medical examiner that performed the autopsy or the investigator tells the press what the examination determined - you still are getting the official word.

I would have no problem taking Matthews to trial on premeditated murder on the facts that we do know: his prior statements, choice of weapon and the fact that he fired multiple rounds gives a jury more than enough evidence of premiditation and malice aforethought to consider...

[exodus]

To: general_re
Hey if I want to blow through stop signs or speed or drive blind drunk it's my right....(/sarcasm)
# 241 by dubyaismypresident

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

The regulation of traffic is a legitimate, Constitutionally mandated function of our government. Matthews didn't have a problem with that.

Matthews believed that the requirement that we have to get government permission before being allowed to use public roads infringed upon our right to travel.

Matthews believed that the requirement that we must show identification infringed upon our right of privacy.

It was the driver's license Matthews had a problem with, not the traffic laws.

[exodus]

That's why Matthews felt so strongly that police officers should be required to take an oath before they were given the authority to enforce the law. He wanted them to be accountable for their actions.
- exodus

To: exodus; Kevin Curry; Cap'n Crunch
A..hem. They are.

# 606 by Abundy
*************************

I thought all officers of the government had to sware an oath too, but that's not so, according to the article that started this thread.--

“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.”

[exodus]

Do you know if Officer Taylor was drivng the car? Was he in the passenger seat?
- exodus

He was driving, read the reports.
# 607 by Abundy
*************************

Okay, Officer Taylor was driving. Thanks, I missed that.

Do you know if Taylor had a partner in the car with him?

[exodus]

If the driver of the police car made the mistake of turning to the left when the firing started, officer Taylor would be crazy to try to leave the car. He would stand a much better chance of survival if he stayed where he was, behind what little shelter his door offered, returning fire through the window. His backside would be protected.
- exodus

To: exodus
When the rounds from Matthews' CZ began to penetrate his vehicle (or he saw them penetrating other cruisers) he would have to put as much vehicle between himself and the shooter.
# 607 by Abundy
*************************

I wouldn't.

When Matthews started firing, even if the rounds started penetrating my vehicle, I would know that it would be suicide to try to run. My best chance would be to bring Matthews down before I was hit.

Trying to run in that situation would leave me defenseless, while taking Matthews out would remove the danger. It would take very little time to pull the trigger, and a comparative eternity to get out of my seat.

Of course, that decision would be beside the point, since I was assuming that officer Taylor was a passenger, while he was in fact the driver.

[Abundy]

Last post first.

Have you ever been under fire or trained for that eventuality?

If you have, you know that what actually occurs in a stress situation may not be what you plan for. No one ever knows how they will react to a firefight.

[Abundy]

“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.”

Why not examine that quote in context? Here is the information needed to evaluate it:

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.”

You are quoting an associate of the deceased who handed a notice of alleged "civil rights" violations to the reporter. First of all, a police officer being bonded or not ain't a civil right violation. Second, the statement says "chances are" - which means he hasn't done any more research into the assertion regarding the lack of an oath than you or I have. My knowledge regarding oaths for police officers comes from having taken one; first as a police officer and then twice as an attorney. Would you believe they basically the same oath?

My evaluation of his knowledge of the law, based on other statements he made to the reporter, is that he knows very little.

I'd be willing to bet that any law enforcement officer in Ohio is required to swear an oath to uphold the laws of the State, the State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

Until I see a link to the Ohio code where it says they don't swear an oath then this guy Cass is just another nut.

Try another point.

[RabidBartender]

"You are quoting an associate of the deceased who handed a notice of alleged "civil rights" violations to the reporter. "

But that is the truth, you see. He's read the Constitution at least once and can interpret it better than anyone else can, because I said so. Ignore the coroners, investigators, most reporters, and cops. All cops are liars and cover-up artists and are out kill honest Jefferson-fearing citizens like us. Now excuse me, I have to go clean my arsenal. That FBI agent who poses as a electric meter reader is coming today and I have go set up my claymores in case he starts asking be about my power usage. He has no legal authority to see how much juice I use, no matter how good his disguise is.

(big grin)

[exodus]

To: exodus
"...I would have no problem taking Matthews to trial on premeditated murder on the facts that we do know: his prior statements, choice of weapon and the fact that he fired multiple rounds gives a jury more than enough evidence of premeditation and malice aforethought to consider..."

# 607 by Abundy

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

If I were a juror I wouldn't consider choice of weapon evidence of intent to do murder in any case. Weapon choice is an individual matter, covering cost, availability, asthetics, the feel of the weapon, what kind your friends have, how big the magazine must be to make you feel safe, and no telling how many other individual preferences.

The fact that Matthews fired multiple rounds wouldn't necessarily be evidence of intent. Matthews could have fired the first shot trying to scare the police away, and fear of death could explain the extra rounds.

Matthews' prior statements I would not consider as indication of intent, because he had two chances to kill the State trooper before the firefight, and didn't do so. That would be evidence in Matthews favor, that he didn't plan to kill anyone.

I would give strong consideration to Matthews showing his weapon to the State trooper during the second traffic stop. It might have been no more than an attempt to intimidate the trooper, but it could also show intent to do violence. Based upon the fact that Matthews didn't have a history of violence, I would probably decide that Matthews was trying to intimidate the trooper.

Abundy, I would find Matthews guilty of 2nd degree murder, not first degree. There is significant doubt that Matthews intended to kill.

[exodus]

To: exodus
Have you ever been under fire or trained for that eventuality?

If you have, you know that what actually occurs in a stress situation may not be what you plan for. No one ever knows how they will react to a firefight.
# 612 by Abundy

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

No, I've never been under fire, and yes, I fully understand that that things can go FUBAR within seconds after things start happening.

[RabidBartender]

"No, I've never been under fire, and yes, I fully understand that that things can go FUBAR within seconds after things start happening."

Then you must understand (not referring to this case), that despite the best training available, mistakes can be made. However, the fringe movement and acts of people like Matthews jump all over these and make Holy Crusades over them. This is what gets my goat.

I believe we should question the government on questionable acts. Waco is a perfect example. However, there are others that question every single action and see every act as a pervasive invasion of privacy and violation of personal rights. I am quite surprised I haven't seen postmen shot by some of these people because a)they are government employees, and b)they are trespassing on the land.

My argument is counter to yours. I believe what the police and reporters have put out. I am not supportive of the villification of Betty_boop (who I am not even familiar with) or labelling so-called 'Constitutionalists' as nutjobs. But we have to recognize that there is a problem here in this situation, and it is not with 'authority'. It is with the outright determination to instigate conflicts with what these people view as a 'tyrannical' government.

[exodus]

To: exodus
"...My knowledge regarding oaths for police officers comes from having taken one; first as a police officer and then twice as an attorney. Would you believe they basically the same oath?..."
# 613 by Abundy
*************************

Wait a minute!! Your're an attorney?
Oh, nevermind, I guess it's alright.

If the oaths are "basicly the same," do you consider yourself to be a representative of the government, in the same sense that a policeman is a member of the government?

[Kevin Curry]

Skepticism of government is a heathy thing, and there are many examples of police corruption throughout the nation.

Matthews' murderous obsession over an oath was not a healthy thing. It was grossly dysfunctional, pathological. Police corruption in this country is not a major problem--just a highly publicized one. If you want to experience police corruption, take a stroll down south of the border. Pick a country--any country.

[Kevin Curry]

I am not supportive of the villification of Betty_boop (who I am not even familiar with) or labelling so-called 'Constitutionalists' as nutjobs.

I don't believe Betty Boop has been vilified, although her judgment has certainly been called into question here.

On the other hand, any person who believes cops and public officials are guilty of a capital offense because of some "missing" 13th Amendment, or alleged lack of an oath, is a definite nutjob. No question about it. How can you even suggest otherwise?