There's an "imminent" threat in the nature of these statements, and a reasonableness in believing that they could occur at any time, even if he was captured first.
That's the big difference:
"In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action".[30][31] Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.[32]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
A guy can say "Death to the Jews!", call for a violent insurrection, or any other offensive thing he wants, and it is protected by the first amendment so long as there is no clear and present danger of imminent violence.
Under the “hate speech” laws, direct threats against a person, or a call for action against a person which could lead to injury, property damage or death is “actionable” by the police.
It’s all in the “details” of what was said, how it was said, and under what circumstances (drunk as opposed to sober, holding a weapon in one’s hand while making the threat - several of the last mass shootings had the perp holding weapons, etc).
There might also be some state laws that define an “imminent threat” that could be used for preemptive law enforcement action.
Brandenburg was a terrible decision on its face. Believe it was the Warren Court which did more to gut our internal security/crime laws than any other court in US history (and I’m not talking about the Miranda decision, which was reasonable).
Under Brandenburg, you literally have to wait until someone throws a firebomb into your house or car on property before they can be detained, NOT PREVENTED. Otherwise all the Antifa punks in Portland, Seattle, DC, Berkeley, would have been arrested as soon as they raised their arms with weapons in them.
This also gives the enemy the advantage of NOT being shot in the motion of throwing something, and then being classified as “unarmed”.
Time for Brandenburg to be revisited, overturned, and the laws rewritten to protect the victim, not the criminal.