After a two-day trial, Western Standard publisher Derek Fildebrandt on Sept. 18 will learn his fate on charges of uttering threats against four teenaged boys he accused of vandalizing his property following a chaotic incident earlier this spring. That’s when Court of King’s Bench Justice Allan Fradsham will hear final arguments to answer whether the 38-year old husband and father two of was acting as a concerned citizen defending his property or as a vigilante taking the law into his own hands..It comes after Fildebrandt took the stand in his own defence on Thursday to answer to allegations that he threatened to shoot four teens in front of his house on April 13.In two hours, of at times testy cross-examination, Fildebrandt testified he thought the boys, aged 13-14-years old, were damaging ornamental lawn signs warning pet owners not to let their dogs defecate on his lawn.On Wednesday, three of the four boys testified they were in fact waiting for a fifth friend to join them after a birthday party that included an afternoon of paintball, cake and video games. They had congregated on the sidewalk in front of Fildebrandt’s corner-lot house on the way to the convenience store to get some snacks.Fildebrandt, who admitted he verbally confronted the boys, was alleged to have pointed a gun — or an axe — at the frightened youths and threatened to shoot them. But what they thought was a firearm turned out to be a cane he used to walk following injuries sustained in a motorcycle crash the previous summer.The cane in question was entered as evidence in the proceedings..After a verbal confrontation on the sidewalk, court heard Fildebrandt then proceeded to give chase to the boys in his pickup truck. He eventually cornered one of the youths on a driveway before a melee involving neighbours and the other boys’ parents ensued, causing him to retreat back to his home in a bid to "de-escalate" the situation.But rather than charging the boys with vandalism, the Calgary Police Service (CPS) eventually charged Fildebrandt with uttering threats on April 30, more than two weeks after the fact.Under cross examination, Crown prosecutor Stephanie Morton said he was motivated by an incident last summer when his motorcycle was damaged by a vandal who knocked it over. That eventually caused the brakes to fail and indirectly led to an accident days later. Fildebrandt admitted he didn’t think the police handled that case properly. At the time police made an arrest but the accused failed to show up in court. “Vandalism is something I care deeply about,” he said. “I knew if I just simply called the police… that absolutely nothing would happen. I needed to at least be able to identify someone or get an address. That was my objective, and then the police would go and talk to them.”.All three boys testified that they didn’t damage Fildebrandt’s property or even trespass on the lawn. Fildebrandt was unable to determine what, if any, damage they may have caused to his lawn signs, which were worth about $20-$30 at most.That’s despite the fact Fildebrandt told a 911 dispatcher — from the driver’s seat of the truck — he was “under attack” by the youths. In retrospect he admitted the term was “overly strong language.”“So when you called them… and you said to them, ‘I'm in pursuit of some teenage vandals that just vandalized my house, or I'm in pursuit of vandals who attacked my house’. Do you agree with me that they did not attack your house?” Morton asked.“Well, I would say it was overly strong. I mean, it was certainly not an attack in the sense that anyone was trying to force an entry or something. So I agree that ‘attack’ was overly strong,” Fildebrandt replied..However, Fildebrandt adamantly denied he told the teens he had a gun or threatened them with one. Rather, he told police he was doing a “Grandpa Simpson” routine and shaking his fist — and the cane in question.
After a two-day trial, Western Standard publisher Derek Fildebrandt on Sept. 18 will learn his fate on charges of uttering threats against four teenaged boys he accused of vandalizing his property following a chaotic incident earlier this spring. That’s when Court of King’s Bench Justice Allan Fradsham will hear final arguments to answer whether the 38-year old husband and father two of was acting as a concerned citizen defending his property or as a vigilante taking the law into his own hands..It comes after Fildebrandt took the stand in his own defence on Thursday to answer to allegations that he threatened to shoot four teens in front of his house on April 13.In two hours, of at times testy cross-examination, Fildebrandt testified he thought the boys, aged 13-14-years old, were damaging ornamental lawn signs warning pet owners not to let their dogs defecate on his lawn.On Wednesday, three of the four boys testified they were in fact waiting for a fifth friend to join them after a birthday party that included an afternoon of paintball, cake and video games. They had congregated on the sidewalk in front of Fildebrandt’s corner-lot house on the way to the convenience store to get some snacks.Fildebrandt, who admitted he verbally confronted the boys, was alleged to have pointed a gun — or an axe — at the frightened youths and threatened to shoot them. But what they thought was a firearm turned out to be a cane he used to walk following injuries sustained in a motorcycle crash the previous summer.The cane in question was entered as evidence in the proceedings..After a verbal confrontation on the sidewalk, court heard Fildebrandt then proceeded to give chase to the boys in his pickup truck. He eventually cornered one of the youths on a driveway before a melee involving neighbours and the other boys’ parents ensued, causing him to retreat back to his home in a bid to "de-escalate" the situation.But rather than charging the boys with vandalism, the Calgary Police Service (CPS) eventually charged Fildebrandt with uttering threats on April 30, more than two weeks after the fact.Under cross examination, Crown prosecutor Stephanie Morton said he was motivated by an incident last summer when his motorcycle was damaged by a vandal who knocked it over. That eventually caused the brakes to fail and indirectly led to an accident days later. Fildebrandt admitted he didn’t think the police handled that case properly. At the time police made an arrest but the accused failed to show up in court. “Vandalism is something I care deeply about,” he said. “I knew if I just simply called the police… that absolutely nothing would happen. I needed to at least be able to identify someone or get an address. That was my objective, and then the police would go and talk to them.”.All three boys testified that they didn’t damage Fildebrandt’s property or even trespass on the lawn. Fildebrandt was unable to determine what, if any, damage they may have caused to his lawn signs, which were worth about $20-$30 at most.That’s despite the fact Fildebrandt told a 911 dispatcher — from the driver’s seat of the truck — he was “under attack” by the youths. In retrospect he admitted the term was “overly strong language.”“So when you called them… and you said to them, ‘I'm in pursuit of some teenage vandals that just vandalized my house, or I'm in pursuit of vandals who attacked my house’. Do you agree with me that they did not attack your house?” Morton asked.“Well, I would say it was overly strong. I mean, it was certainly not an attack in the sense that anyone was trying to force an entry or something. So I agree that ‘attack’ was overly strong,” Fildebrandt replied..However, Fildebrandt adamantly denied he told the teens he had a gun or threatened them with one. Rather, he told police he was doing a “Grandpa Simpson” routine and shaking his fist — and the cane in question.
