Western Standard publisher Derek Fildebrandt will have to wait until November to find out his fate after his trial for uttering threats wrapped up on Wednesday.Justice Allan Fradsham heard closing arguments in a Calgary courtroom after several days of testimony spanning two weeks. The final verdict will be handed down on November 22.No new evidence was introduced Wednesday, but defence lawyer Alain Hepner insisted it was mostly a misunderstanding when Fildebrandt confronted five teenagers he suspected of vandalizing his property in the evening hours of April 13.That’s when Fildebrandt, tired and jet lagged from a business trip to Ottawa, confronted four teen boys aged 13-14 while a fifth girl looked on..Court heard the boys had been awaiting their friend on the sidewalk in front of Fildebrandt’s Crestwood home on the way to a convenience store for snacks following a birthday party at one of the friend’s homes.Fildebrandt watched them from his dining room window before heading out through the garage to investigate, whereupon they ran. Under agreed facts, much yelling and commotion ensued with the boys mistaking a walking cane for what they thought was a gun.During the trial, the boys testified that Fildebrandt threatened to shoot them and they thought they were going to die. While one boy ran to a neighbour’s for help, Fildebrandt chased the others in his pickup truck, cornering one of the youths on a nearby driveway while he called 911..“I don't think it's unreasonable to think any homeowner would do the same thing to confront a bunch of kids standing around.“Defence lawyer Alain Hepner.Testifying in his own defence, Fildebrandt said he wanted the boys to stop or he would call police — which he did — and at no time threatened to shoot or harm anyone. In fact, he insists he was the one threatened with assault by the father of one of the boys after the fact.Only three of the five teens testified because they had to be a minimum of 14 years old to swear an oath.At issue is whether the boys’ testimony could be considered credible considering their respective ages and discrepancies in their stories. One boy thought he saw an axe while another said it could have been a baseball bat rather than a cane.Hepner argued the incident was a misunderstanding that raised reasonable doubts about what was said, and when.“I don't think it's unreasonable to think any homeowner would do the same thing to confront a bunch of kids standing around. I mean, there's no allegation of any kind, but he just went to confront them. And then he comes up and screamed at them, but it's consistent with his view,” he said. “I would say that at the end of the day that you ought to have a doubt as to what was said given the differences of the circumstances of where they were, when they left, that they were scared, and they ran.”.“Mr. Fildebrandt’s words and actions towards these children on this evening were threatening and illogical.” Crown prosecutor Stephanie Morton.But Crown prosecutor Stephanie Morton argued what was actually said wasn’t as important as Fildebrandt’s intentions — which were clearly meant to frighten the boys. He admitted as much on the stand.Apart from the issue of the cane, she said chasing the boys in his truck by pulling U-turns and driving in the wrong lane was clear demonstration of intent to harm. She also noted several conflicting statements along with a recording of the 911 call where Fildebrandt insisted he was under “attack” by vandals when in fact there was no evidence of damages to his property.“I submit that he was disproportionately enraged by them running away and the falsity that they've done something to remove signs, so much so that he called 911, the emergency line and continued his violent behaviour by chasing these children down the street his Ford F150 pickup truck,” she said. “Mr. Fildebrandt’s words and actions towards these children on this evening were threatening and illogical.” According to the association of Alberta Criminal Defence Lawyers, the law focuses on whether the threat in question was made intentionally; whether the accused understood the threat's meaning; and whether the victim(s) felt truly threatened. “In other words, each charge must be carefully considered in relation to the specific circumstances involved,” it says on its website.If convicted, Fildebrandt faces a maximum five years imprisonment.
