Lawyers argue if man who pointed gun at two men north of Edmonton was acting in self defense

St. Albert court heard closing arguments this month in the case of a man who is charged with pointing a gun at two trespassers on his rural Morinville property.

Calvin Verbeek is charged with pointing a firearm and threats to cause bodily harm.

In a recent trial, two men testified they were parked outside the gated entrance to a piece of Verbeek’s farm property last summer when Verbeek’s truck sped towards them. Verbeek pulled up to the men and shouted at them to leave.

When the men approached Verbeek’s truck, Verbeek revealed a shotgun and pointed it out the driver’s side window at the men, they testified. Verbeek has denied pointing the gun at the men.

On Aug. 19 both men testified Verbeek pumped the shotgun and threatened to shoot them. They admitted during testimony they had been trespassing on the property.

Verbeek testified he had received a phone call from a neighbour with a view of his property. The neighbour said there were vehicles on the property and Verbeek’s cattle were trailing behind the vehicles.

Verbeek left his house, about five minutes distance from where the cars were spotted, to confront the men. He brought his young grandson with him.

The men were no longer on the property when he arrived, but they were still parked outside the entrance, engaged in a conversation.

Verbeek’s lawyer, Graham Rapson, argued both complainants had given inconsistent and unreliable testimony.

He noted one of the men had been drinking the day before the incident, and his description of where Verbeek’s truck was parked in relation to the other two vehicles did not match with the details given by other witnesses.

The other complainant displayed a “false confidence” throughout his testimony, Rapson said.

The man said Verbeek’s shotgun was loaded, but during cross-examination admitted he could not truly tell whether the gun contained ammunition.  

The man also pushed back on the significance of his trespassing, insisting there was nothing wrong with being on the property and showing reluctance to apologize.

The neighbour who called Verbeek about the trespassers also testified. She said she did not hear shouting, despite being only 20 to 30 feet away from the scene. She said she saw what she believed was a broom handle or a pipe come out of the truck window and point at the sky but did not see a gun pointed at the two men.

Verbeek acted in self defence, Rapson argued.

Verbeek has dealt with multiple property thefts in the recent past, Rapson said. In one of these incidents, an assailant attacked Verbeek with a propane torch.

When he received the phone call from his neighbours, Verbeek had good reason to believe that something odd and suspicious was happening on his property, Rapson said.  

Using the shotgun was reasonable given that the two men not only outnumbered Verbeek, but were also much larger and younger than him, and his young grandson was in the car.

“The gun was the equalizer; he used it,” Rapson said.

It was only after the men approached Verbeek’s vehicle that the shotgun appeared. Verbeek did not intend to take vigilante action against the men. Rather, he acted out of fear of an imminent threat.

One of the trespassers knew Verbeek. However, Verbeek didn’t recognize the man at the time and after the incident claimed the two hadn’t communicated in over a decade.

Crown prosecutor Crystal Robertson argued Verbeek admitted to uttering threats. In his testimony, he acknowledged he pointed the gun out the window and pumped it, an action that was meant to convey that he could hurt the complainants.

Some of the testimony inconsistencies were likely because of a misunderstanding of courtroom language, Robertson said.

Overall, the two men gave a very similar account of the events.

The man who approached Verbeek’s vehicle to de-escalate the situation knew Verbeek. He used Verbeek’s nickname, explained why he was there and testified he had known Verbeek most of his life.

Verbeek agreed the man was calm and didn’t use threatening language.

Robertson questioned why Verbeek would bring his young grandson to the property if he sensed there was a serious threat.

Verbeek came “looking for a fight” and to scare away trespassers, and he was frustrated with police inaction when it came to the property crimes he had experienced in the past, Robertson said.

“He could have rolled up his window,” Robertson said. “He could have locked door. He could have driven away. Instead, his response to calm, peaceful men on side of road was to threaten [them] by pointing a gun … There was no defending himself against a phantom threat that didn’t exist.”

A decision in the case is expected on Sept. 23 at 10 a.m. in St. Albert court.