Man Shoots Veteran in Wheelchair After Accusing Him of Stolen Valor — that’s exactly what happened on July 31, 2025, when a confrontation on Seattle’s Pier 55 turned violent. Gregory William Timm, 32, shot Navy veteran Harold James Powell, 68, after accusing him of falsifying his military service. The incident, caught on video, unfolded in front of a Starbucks along the waterfront and has since sparked debate over self-defense laws, escalation of force, and the difference between legal rights and smart decision-making.
The Waterfront Confrontation
Powell, a wheelchair-bound musician, was playing guitar on the Seattle waterfront when Timm approached him. According to reports, Timm—known for driving his van into a Trump voter registration booth in 2020—accused Powell of stolen valor.
Tensions escalated quickly. Timm ripped a patch off Powell’s wheelchair, prompting Powell to draw a knife and then brandish what appeared to be a firearm. Later identified as an airsoft gun, the replica was visually indistinguishable from a real handgun at close range.
In response, Timm backed away, rifled through his bag, produced a pistol, and shot Powell once in the chest. The entire exchange reportedly lasted less than a minute.
Washington State Law and Self-Defense
Under Washington’s use of force statute (RCW 9A.16.020), individuals have the right to defend themselves without retreating if they are lawfully present and face a threat. The law permits the use of force deemed necessary to stop the threat—but not excessive force.
Another state statute, RCW 9A.16.110, allows defendants acquitted on self-defense grounds to seek reimbursement for legal costs. Whether Timm’s actions meet that standard will depend on how a jury interprets the sequence of events.
Self-defense law is rarely black and white. While ripping an item from someone’s wheelchair could be considered assault, it does not automatically justify lethal force. The question becomes whether Powell’s escalation—from a knife to an airsoft gun—was reasonable given his physical limitations. In turn, the jury will have to assess whether Timm’s response was legally justified after provoking the confrontation.
The Broader Lessons for Armed Citizens
From a legal perspective, disparity of force can sometimes justify a faster escalation by someone in a physically disadvantaged position. However, even that principle has limits. In this case, Timm may argue that Powell’s display of a realistic-looking weapon created an imminent threat, making his use of a firearm lawful under state law.
From a practical standpoint, however, the encounter raises questions about judgment and situational awareness. Even if a jury finds Timm legally justified, his actions—initiating the confrontation and provoking a response—demonstrate the risks of engaging in avoidable disputes while armed.
This case serves as a reminder that carrying a firearm comes with both legal and personal responsibilities. Avoiding unnecessary conflict is often the most effective form of self-defense. Firearm owners should not only understand their state’s laws but also seek training that prepares them to de-escalate situations and recognize when disengagement is the smarter option.
Whether or not Timm’s actions are ultimately ruled lawful, the incident highlights the complex interplay between the letter of the law, human judgment, and the unpredictable nature of confrontations in public spaces.
There’s no better way to support the 2A than with merch that speaks before you do.
The Anti Anti-2A Social Club is more than a name it’s a stand against censorship, double standards, and the erosion of our rights. Every tee, hat, and mug is a symbol of unapologetic defiance. Wear it with pride because defending your rights is a badge of honor.
Click the link below to join the club.