The Stolen Valor Provocateur

By: Shawn Vincent

On the evening of July 31, 2025, at Seattle’s bustling Alaskan Way boardwalk, 32-year-old Gregory William Timm accused a wheelchair-bound  68-year-old man named Harold James Powell of stolen valor. Timm felt Powell was falsely claiming military service. According to prosecutors, Timm “demanded the victim provide identification to prove his military status. As the victim was taking out his wallet, the defendant removed a military patch from the victim’s belongings.”

Powell responded by producing a knife. According to reporting from KOMO News, “Investigators said Timm continued to demand the victim’s military ID, and the victim took out an Airsoft gun from a holster.” Charging documents say that before Powell “could even do anything with it,” Timm drew his real firearm, pointed it at Powell, and fired one round into his chest. Powell survived but faces a long recovery.

In court, Timm’s attorney argued that his client “acted in self-defense because Powell pulled a gun on him first.” However, a spokesperson from the King County prosecutor’s office told reporters, “A key in self-defense cases is who the first aggressor is. If you provoke an attack upon yourself, you lose the right to claim self-defense.”

The King County prosecutor specifically mentioned the terms first aggressor and provoke. There are important legal nuances between the two concepts, but both can scuttle a self-defense claim.

The idea of the first aggressor roughly refers to “whoever throws the first punch.” If you instigate the violence, then you’ve given the other person justification to use force against you. Even if the other party escalates their response to the threat of deadly force, the law makes it very difficult for you to claim self-defense in a fight you started. Firearms instructor Steve Moses says, “If you engage in something that might go to mutual combat, then your self-defense claim probably evaporates—unless you make some heroic attempt to disengage and the other person continues.”

In the stolen valor case, Timm “removed a military patch from the victim’s belongings,” which were presumably attached to his wheelchair. In many jurisdictions, touching someone’s wheelchair or other assistive device with the intent to harass is a crime akin to assault or battery. From that perspective, Timm became the initial aggressor when he removed that patch.

But you don’t have to be the first aggressor for the law to hold you accountable for starting a fight. Harassing or taunting someone in the hopes that they will throw the first punch is legally considered provocation. Criminal defense attorney and CCW Safe National Trial Counsel Don West says provocation is the act of baiting someone to attack you. “You’re doing and saying things with the expectation that the other person will respond physically,” Don says, “giving you an excuse to attack them back.” In most jurisdictions, provoking someone to attack you can legally invalidate a self-defense claim.

At least two bystanders recorded video of Timm’s encounter with Powell (who, according to news accounts, is in fact a Navy veteran). The video makes it pretty evident that Timm presented as both the first aggressor and the provocateur—which will cause significant challenges for his legal defense.

This is an extraordinary case, and if you research it further, you’ll find Timm has a checkered past and is probably psychologically unstable. However, in our work, we frequently find that otherwise level-headed, law-abiding people can find themselves in escalating confrontations that began as verbal interventions. Many lessons from this extreme case can inform an armed defender who finds themselves in a more nuanced circumstance.

We’ve curated a list of 36 lessons for armed defenders. Here are some of the key lessons that apply to the case of the stolen valor provocateur:

Lesson 11 – Don’t be the first aggressorWhen Timm ripped the military patch from Powell’s belongings on his wheelchair, he became the first aggressor in the prosecutor’s eyes. Even if a jury finds that Timm acted reasonably in response to Powell’s airsoft pistol, they’ll likely be instructed that, if they find Timm was the first aggressor, they should convict.

Lesson 12 – Don’t provoke a potential aggressor

Timm may not have meant to provoke a violent response from Powell, but that won’t stop the prosecutor from arguing that Timm baited the wheelchair-bound veteran. Even if a jury doesn’t believe Timm’s act of removing the badge made him the first aggressor, if they believe he intentionally provoked Powell, Timm could still face conviction.   

Lesson 13 – Don’t start needless arguments

It wasn’t illegal for Timm to accuse Powell of false valor, but it wasn’t smart, and it wasn’t necessary. When you choose to carry a firearm, any verbal confrontation could potentially escalate into a deadly force scenario if the other party becomes violent. As an armed defender, you have a moral responsibility to avoid unnecessary conflict.   

Lesson 4 – The threat must be imminent and serious

Powell armed himself in response to Timm’s provocations—first with a knife and then with an airsoft gun. Timm is an able-bodied 32-year-old, and Powell is more than twice his age and confined to a wheelchair. Timm could have safely walked away when Powell presented the knife. Moments later, when Powell presented the holstered airsoft gun, Timm still had alternatives to deadly force. Even if Timm believed the pistol was a real firearm, prosecutors will suggest that Powell’s limited mobility gave Timm ample time to escape or de-escalate before discharging his firearm.

Lesson 5 – The belief of imminent harm or death must be reasonable

If all we knew about this case was that Powell presented a reasonable facsimile of a firearm during a heated argument, a third party might see Timm’s use of force as reasonable. But considering the totality of the circumstances—including Timms’ provocation and the physical disparity between the two parties (see Lesson 18)—it becomes difficult to believe Timm reasonably believed he faced a grave, imminent threat when he pulled the trigger.

Lesson 20 – De-escalate with verbal cues

Arguably, when Powell presented the holstered airsoft pistol, Timm missed an opportunity to reduce the intensity of the confrontation with verbal cues. He could have stepped back and asked Powell to back down in order to disambiguate Powell’s intentions. Had Powell tried to unholster his pistol, Timm could have acted with more confidence that Powell presented a true imminent threat.

Lesson 35 – You’re responsible for every bullet

This shooting occurred at a busy waterfront boardwalk swarming with people. If Timm had missed his target or the bullet had passed through Powell, he might have struck a passerby, which would have compounded the tragedy and increased his legal jeopardy. As an armed defender, you have a responsibility to consider collateral damage before firing in a public place.

Lesson 36 – Avoid the fight

This shooting didn’t need to happen. Powell regularly cruised the boardwalk and was known to play music and “spread cheer.” Even if Timm had been correct about his stolen valor claim, his choice to initiate and escalate the encounter proved disastrous. Often, the smart move is to mind your business and walk away.

Our 36 lessons do not constitute legal or tactical advice, but if you integrate these concepts into your self-defense discipline, they will help you avoid dangerous encounters, survive an attack, and reduce the legal jeopardy associated with using deadly force in self-defense. This list is not meant to be authoritative—but it does represent the informed experience of respected professionals who have dedicated a significant portion of their careers to teaching self-defense and legally representing armed defenders.