By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On July 31st, 68-year-old Navy veteran Harold Powell was shot in the chest while busking on Seattle’s waterfront. The assailant, later identified as 32-year-old Gregory Timm, accused Powell of “stolen valor” before shooting him. Though the bullet cracked his ribs, it did not strike any vital organs. Timm was arrested and is being held on bail, while Powell recovers and focuses on his family.
Read the original article here
Disabled veteran survives being shot by man who accused him of stolen valor. The incident itself is shocking, a brutal act of violence sparked by a dispute over military service. It all began when a man, identified as Gregory Timm, approached the veteran and accused him of “stolen valor,” falsely claiming to have served in the military. The veteran, in response, offered to produce his military identification to prove his service, but before he could, he was shot. It’s a clear escalation, fueled by a warped sense of justice and a disregard for human life.
The core of the problem revolves around the concept of “stolen valor.” While the act of falsely claiming military service to obtain benefits is fraud and illegal, the issue is more complex than it appears. It’s essential to recognize that “stolen valor” isn’t a legal term. The shooter in this instance, clearly unhinged, appears to have a history of violence and animosity towards various political groups, including targeting voter registration sites. This context is crucial and the lack of this information in some reports feels like a gross oversight.
The shooter’s actions raise serious questions about his mental state and his access to firearms. How someone with a history of erratic and violent behavior is permitted to own a gun is deeply concerning. The fact that the veteran survived, despite being shot in the chest, is a testament to his resilience, and underscores the severity of the incident. The charges initially filed, assault and robbery, seem woefully inadequate. The circumstances clearly suggest a premeditated act of violence, and the charges should reflect the severity of the attempted murder.
The whole situation highlights how the focus on “stolen valor” can be misguided. Many veterans don’t concern themselves with such things, believing it’s not worth the emotional energy. They prioritize their own well-being and the bonds they forged during their service. The amount of benefit gained without proper proof of service is minimal. To fixate on the actions of someone who is potentially falsely representing their military service, while being completely unconcerned about the intent of a potential killer is absurd. The idea that someone deserves to be shot simply for misrepresenting their service is profoundly disturbing.
There’s a disturbing trend of individuals using the issue of “stolen valor” as a pretext for violence. The veteran was in a wheelchair, an easy target, and the shooter escalated the situation and seemed to be expecting praise. There’s a video of the shooting, which depicts a chilling moment of violence that should serve as a catalyst for change.
It’s also worth noting that the veteran may have also been in the wrong. The veteran pulled out an airsoft gun before he was shot. The situation was very escalated. The shooter was a clear menace, with a history of violence and it should have been clear that he was a dangerous individual. The veteran should have simply removed himself from the situation.
The incident is a sobering reminder of the dangers of unchecked aggression and the importance of de-escalation. It underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of military service, patriotism, and how the perceived honor of military service is weaponized by some. Ultimately, the disabled veteran survived a senseless act of violence, and his story should serve as a stark warning about the need for empathy, understanding, and a rejection of violence in all its forms.