The replica gun is no where near the same thing, because that requires conduct to do. You have to buy or create the fake gun. You have to take the fake gun with you. You have to pull the fake gun out. You have to point it at someone.
No, it’s the exact same principle. There does not have to be any actual conduct behind the threat.
But, if the object itself has you hung up, then communicate a bomb threat to a school. Call up your ex-girlfriend and tell her that you are going to kill her if she doesn’t get back together with you. Tell a child’s mother that you are going to “f— up” her child.
Because I promise you, all of the above are “actionable”, without you ever having any intent to carry those threats out.
You quite literally don’t know what you’re talking about. And as a footnote, uttering speech is “Conduct”, too. Thus, why “Disorderly Conduct” normally involves little or nothing more than speech.
And lastly, mmmmm literally didn’t say “crime” once in what you quoted. Which makes sense, since nobody is saying that Westbrook should be prosecuted for a crime here. Rather, he multiple times talked about “actual violence”. As I pointed out, the intent to actually follow through with the threat isn’t an element. Threats don’t require follow through to be a threat. You called that a strawman, which is just another of the many things that you have been wrong about in this thread.
I suppose this will come across as fairly personal, but if you really are an attorney, you really should not be providing inaccurate advice or analysis, regardless of whether it is anonymous. It just makes the profession overall look bad. If you haven’t looked at a criminal statute since law school, that’s fine, but isn’t it better to keep your mouth shut rather than misleading people?