Poking the Bear or Provoking God? Rudy Davis Justifies Murder In the First Degree by his Endorsement of the Falsehoods of Patrick Hoffman

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.  Proverbs 17:15

In the above  February 26, 2019 Lonestar 1776 video, at the 8.28 mark, Rudy Davis says to incarcerated first degree murderer Patrick Hoffman, in a recorded jail conversation, “…these cowards who’d like to walk up to the bear and because there’s a, they think there’s a huge piece of glass between them and the bear and they make faces at the bear and they poke at the bear and they make fun of the bear and they all say this disparaging comments if that glass was removed they wouldn’t be saying the things that they’re saying and these are big-time cowards for anybody that picks upon the prisoner and wants to make his life even more hell than it already is, I got no respect for them.  They’re just the biggest cowards I’ve ever seen in my life.” (8.56)

Poking the Bear…?

Over the years I have heard the poking the bear warning in many different contexts. The Bear has been referred to as the Russian bear, or the Great Bear Constellation which represents the Luciferian Priesthood, or as a reference to a person who when provoked, becomes dangerous.  Interestingly on the same day, Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth used the same expression in his February 26, 2019 video shown below to describe poking a Legal Bear.In the live chatroom of the Jason Goodman Legal Bear video was Darrell McClanahan, who is a regular commenter on the Lonestar 1776 video channel. As seen in the screenshot below of the Crowdsource the Truth channel, McClanahan was promoting Rudy Davis as a good man, as well as Davis’ prison ministry’s Lonestar videos and yearofjubile/I hate the FBI website.  And someone who calls himself the AR-10 Bear replied, “amen Darrell”.  I guess the 3rd quarter moon of February 26th marked the day of the Bear.Rudy Davis has been called out numerous times by persons who object to his  falsification of facts and his reframing of the histories of  felons in order to declare them  innocent of the crimes which they were charged with. One of the results of this revisionism is that  he has defamed the victims of criminal acts,  judges, juries, witness statements made under oath, and American jurisprudence.  And should a viewer question the false narratives of Rudy Davis, they are labeled as devils and hyenas who are going to hell.

So it is no great surprise that one of Rudy Davis’ fans was promoting his videos to the kindred spirits in the chatroom of Crowdsource the Truth. Jason Goodman, the owner of the CSTT YouTube channel presently has two open federal civil lawsuits against him involving defamation and RICO complaints.

But before Rudy Davis accuses others of foolishly poking the bear, perhaps he ought to consider in what manner he is provoking God when he sets forth a false narrative which exonerates Patrick Hoffman, who is serving life without parole for aggravated murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree.

The Washington State Appeals Decision on State vs. Hoffman

The document which I will be quoting from in the following discussion is a 57 page Appeals document of the Supreme Court of Washington regarding State vs. Hoffman.

Numerous false statements have been made by both Patrick Hoffman and Rudy Davis regarding the murder of tribal police officer Louis Millard while in the line of duty. A small sample can be heard at the 14.58 mark of the February 26, 2019 video, when Rudy Davis says to Hoffman, “… you were at home, you were at your home with your father.  You didn’t like go out and plan anything with your father.  You’re just living your life at your home, they came to your house at 2:30 in the morning and the shootout you know ensued and they broke their orders they were ordered not to go to your house and they broke their supervisor orders to even go out there and your father ends up shot. You think your father’s going to die so I don’t agree with their analysis….”.

To begin with, Hoffman and his father were NOT in the home at the time of the shootout, as the person who had the only key to the house was not present to open the door. After the shootout, Hoffman abandoned his father who had been shot in the out-of-doors near a chicken coop, and he escaped to a friend’s house in another town, leaving his wounded father to be found by the police.

So what is the context of this incident?

In the January 10, 1991, Appeals document linked above, the Facts of the Case begin:  “Patrick Gene Hoffman and his father, Elmer Edward McGinnis seek reversals of their convictions for aggravated murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree.  The convictions were based on charges filed after the August 27, 1986, shooting death of tribal police officer Louis Millard and wounding of tribal police officer John Dick.”

Trial had commenced on February 17, 1987, and years after the conviction of these two defendants, Elmer McGinnis passed away in prison in 2001.  The focal point of this post will be on McGinnis’ son Patrick Hoffman; however, this story begins with the actions of Elmer McGinnis.

The Appeals document, page 2, relates, “On August 25, 1986, 2 days before the shooting, several tribal police officers arrested McGinnis at the Tribal Council headquarters pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant which had been issued by the chief judge of the Tribal Court.  The arrest warrant was issued on a trespass-lands charge.  It was issued after a Mr. Ferguson had complained to the prosecutor that McGinnis had trespassed on his land several times and had threatened and intimidated Mr. Ferguson, his wife, and his daughter.”

“The Tribal Court had originally mailed a criminal summons to McGinnis on the trespass charge but it was returned unopened with his refusal marked thereon.  The warrant for his arrest then issued from the Tribal Court based upon the trespass-lands criminal charge and on the judge’s determination that McGinnis was an immediate threat to the community.”

“McGinnis physically resisted the arrest and assaulted tribal police officers and the ambulance attendants who were called after McGinnis complained of chest pains. McGinnis was taken to the Tribal Health Clinic and the Coulee Community Health Facility where he was booked on the Tribal Court trespass-lands warrant and placed on a tribal police hold for resisting arrest and assaulting the tribal police officers and ambulance crew.  McGinnis continued to complain of pain and, therefore, was ultimately taken to the Mid-Valley Hospital.”

Did Patrick Hoffman have a prior police record?

At this point, I want to introduce a fact sheet which is not found in the Appeals document, which is posted at everytownresearch.org on Washington state law enforcement deaths and illegal guns.  It would appear that the age of Hoffman at the time of the murder of Millard is incorrect, as he was born in 1949, making him 37 years old. But the prior convictions of Hoffman are of interest in considering his overall character.


On page 30 of the Appeals document, an interesting comment is made, saying, “Furthermore, the fact that the trial court refused to admit into evidence the outstanding arrest warrant for defendant Hoffman (because of its potential for creating prejudice) did not prohibit the trial court from considering the warrant in making the determination it did regarding the legality of the search for the defendants.”  Thus we can see that Hoffman had a history with police prior to the August 27, 1986 shootout.

Back to our story…

So returning to our story when McGinnis was in the hospital attached to a heart monitor, the tribal police did not post a guard because of a personnel shortage. According to the Appeals document, “The tribal prosecutor informed McGinnis’ attorney and his daughters that McGinnis was still under arrest and gave McGinnis’ children permission to visit their father in the hospital.  McGinnis was unexpectedly discharged on August 26, the evening before the shooting.  When one of the nurses realized that he was on tribal hold, she attempted to detain him and told him to wait or the police would come after him.  However, McGinnis, in the company of his son (the defendant Patrick Gene Hoffman) and his four daughters, drove away from the hospital.”

Hoffman was the driver of the automobile, and a tribal police officer chased them, at times accelerating 75-80 m.p.h. with the emergency red and blue rotating lights on.  “Hoffman later admitted to knowing that a police car was following him and that he accelerated to get away from it.”  After eluding the police, McGinnis and Hoffman decided to walk the 6-8 miles back to their house. “Hoffman removed a gym bag from the trunk of the car which contained a loaded .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol with 40 rounds of ammunition, a holster and holster belt for the .45 pistol, a loaded .22 caliber revolver, an Interdynamics KG 99 9 mm. semiautomatic pistol with two magazines of ammunition, at least one and possibly two Olin flare guns with flare rounds, a knife, a can of mace and a set of nunchucka sticks.  Hoffman testified that it was his habit to carry these weapons at all times.”

“Upon arriving at the McGinnis’ residence, McGinnis and Hoffman hid behind a chicken coop and armed themselves with the guns from Hoffman’s gym bag.  The police had earlier placed an officer on surveillance of the McGinnis property. An officer also testified that the police believed McGinnis kept a large arsenal of weapons in his house…At approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 27, shortly before the shooting, the officer watching the property observed two individuals whom he could not identify.  Pursuant to his orders, the officer on surveillance radioed the police dispatcher for assistance.  Five marked police cars and a rescue truck arrived at the scene within a short time.  The officers used their patrol car headlights and spotlights and the searchlights on the rescue truck to illuminate and search the property…for approximately 15 minutes.”

As we can see from the Appeals document, the summary of events which Rudy Davis presented is inexcusably inaccurate, because these court tested facts are readily available on the internet.

The Appeals document on page 4 states, “At trial, Hoffman admitted to firing the .22 caliber revolver, the .45 pistol and a flare gun from his position behind the chicken coop.  Two ejected 9 mm. cartridges were found behind the chicken coop near the .22 revolver and a flare gun.  McGinnis was discovered by police early the next morning near the scene of the shooting.  He had been shot with a bullet which was later identified as consistent with Officer Dick’s police revolver and ammunition.  Hoffman escaped, to appear 2 days later at the home of one Jeff Epperson in Keller, Washington. Hoffman told Epperson that McGinnis had fired the 9 mm. gun.  Epperson testified at trial that when told that an officer had been killed, Hoffman replied, ‘good deal’.”

On page 25 of the Appeals document, it was noted that “Defendants also object to the argument, ‘Now, what happened to this gun is that Hoffman knew a police officer had been shot with it and he took it up in the hills and got rid of it.  He hid it where nobody would ever find it.’  This argument was supported by evidence.  Hoffman admitted the gun was at the scene; the gun was never found after an exhaustive search of the area, and Hoffman admitted to the witness Epperson that he had disposed of the gun.”

Another argument Hoffman made in his Appeal on page 13 is that “Hoffman maintains that he was prejudiced because the prosecution was allowed to impeach him with this statement when he testified that he did not know if McGinnis had fired a gun.  This argument, however, does not withstand scrutiny.  Only if a defendant has the right to lie on the stand would such an effort at impeachment unfairly prejudice him, but that is not the law.  The prosecution had the right on cross-examination to impeach the witness with the witness’ own prior inconsistent statement.  The trial court offered to allow Hoffman to recall Epperson to allow him to testify regarding Hoffman’s statement that McGinnis had fired the 9mm.gun, but Hoffman elected not to recall Epperson.”

The Appeals document addresses 20 issues which Hoffman and McGinnis wanted the Court to review. Let’s look at excerpts of  just 3 of these issues.

Issue Seven:  Was sufficient evidence presented from which the jury could find premeditation and intent to kill, as it did?

Conclusion of the Court:  The State produced substantial evidence at trial showing that the killing of police officer Millard was both intended and premeditated.

On page 18 of the Appeals document, several statements are made including, “Premeditation is an essential element of murder in the first degree as charged herein. Premeditation must involve more than a moment in time…the factual record in this case contains evidence which would allow the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendants each premeditated the killing.  There was evidence of prior threats by the defendant McGinnis regarding tribal officers; a number of deadly weapons were brought to the scene of the shooting by the defendant Hoffman; multiple shots were fired by each defendant; one of the victims of the shooting was shot from behind; and several statements indicating premeditation were made by each defendant.”

In addition, it was noted in Issue Seven that “There is substantial evidence from which the jury might reasonably have found that both defendants armed themselves, hid and waited for the officers to approach and then opened fire on the officers.  Evidence from a number of witnesses indicated that it was the officers who were fired upon, rather than the other way around, and that the officers were not the ones who initiated the gunfire…Eight .45 caliber shell casings, eight .22 caliber shell casings and two 9 mm. shell casings were recovered near the chicken coop behind which the defendants were hiding, and all of the expended shells were consistent with having been fired from guns owned by Hoffman.”

“Hoffman also admitted reloading the .45 caliber pistol.  Evidence of multiple acts of violence also supports an inference of premeditation. After both officers were shot, and Officer Dick was crawling and attempting to drag Officer Millard to cover, the defendants continued to coordinate their gunfire with the flares they fired to illuminate the scene of the shooting.  Such conduct is evidence of calculated actions and premeditated intent to kill.”

Issue Seventeen:  Were the trial court’s accomplice liability instructions to the jury erroneous?

Conclusion of the Court: The accomplice instructions given to the jury correctly declared the law of accomplice liability and did not violate defendants’ rights to jury unanimity.

“On the accomplice liability issues, the trial court instructed the jury as follows:  A person who is an accomplice in the commission of a crime is guilty of that crime whether present at the scene or not.  A person is an accomplice in the commission of a crime if, with knowledge that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either (1) solicits, commands, encourages, or requests another person to commit the crime; or (2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime….”.

“Defendant Hoffman argues that the jury must find that he had knowledge of his father’s premeditation in order for him to be convicted of murder in the first degree….”.

“Accomplice liability represents a legislative decision that one who participates in a crime is guilty as a principal, regardless of the degree of participation.  Additionally, as discussed above, there was substantial evidence in this case from which the jury could reasonably find that each of the defendants premeditated the officer’s killing…the jury in this case need not have decided whether it was Hoffman or McGinnis who actually shot and killed Officer Millard so long as both participated in the crime.  The accomplice instructions were not erroneous.”

Issue Nineteen:  Did the jury instructions regarding self-defense and defense of others correctly state the law and allow defendants to argue their theory of the case?

Conclusion of the Court:  The trial court’s justifiable homicide and self-defense instructions correctly stated the law and allowed defendants to argue the defense theories to the jury.

“The trial court gave the following instructions to the jury on self-defense. To convict a Defendant of the crime of Murder in the First Degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That on or about the 27th day of August, 1986, the Defendant shot Louis A. Millard; (2) That the Defendant acted with intent to cause the death of Louis A. Millard; (3) That the intent to cause the death was premeditated; (4) That Louis A. Millard died as a result of Defendant’s acts; and (5) That the acts occurred in Okanogan County, Washington.  If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.  On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.”

Several instructions were given to the jury to explain the law.  Instruction 17 is interesting because it ties in with the poking the bear theme of this article.

Instruction 17 stated, “No person may, by any intentional act reasonably likely to provide a belligerent response, create a necessity for acting in self-defense or defense of another and thereupon kill or use, offer, or attempt to use force upon or toward another person.  Therefore, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the aggressor, and the defendant’s acts and conduct provoked or commenced the fight, then self-defense or defense of another is not available as a defense. One who acts in defense of another, reasonably believing the other to be the innocent party and in danger, is justified in using force necessary to protect that person even if, in fact, the person whom the actor is defending is the aggressor.”

“The briefs and record herein show that the argument defendants wanted to make was that the police had provoked the event and that the defendants were therefore justified in shooting the officers.  Any such theory could be, and was, argued under the self-defense and justifiable homicide instructions to the jury.”

The Court Record is 6,000 pages long.  However, the Appeals Document summarizes the facts and legal arguments in 57 pages, and it is readable on the internet.  It is inexcusable that Rudy Davis, who claims to be an ordained chaplain of the Christian faith, would alter the details of a story involving murder in the first degree and assault in the first degree, in order to falsely assert that Patrick Hoffman is innocent of the charges brought against him. 

Proverbs 17:15:  He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.