Nope. The mere verbalization is enough to warrant a visit by the Secret Service. That the subject has demonstrable means of carrying out the threat (this guy could operate under the color of authority and did carry a sidearm) only served to escalate the matter.
And since he works for the police department, he was likely grilled by his bosses, the feds, and then told to submit to a polygraph or face dismissal. From the looks of things, he failed the polygraph in a large way, hence the additional charge of lying to a federal agent.
Failing a police lie detector test is not a crime.
I never said it was. What is a crime is making false statements to a federal agent.
Lie detector evidence usually isn't even admissable in a court of law.
So? It is ample enough to pass a grand jury and result in formal charges. That's as far as we are right now.
If the testimony of single witness can be used to prosecute a police officer (or any citizen) of making threats against the president, that leaves the door open for people with a gripe to make alot of unfounded allegations.
As I stated earlier in this message, it's not just the words this guy may have uttered, but that he had the capacity to function under color of authority and possessed a sidearm (and de facto permission to carry concealed when off-duty), thus giving him the ability to carry out said threat.
There is also the potential for basic misunderstandings.
Kinda hard to "misunderstand" someone who says he'd kill the President if he got the bullets. The charges of lying to an investigator might indicate that the officer initially denied making a threat and then later admitted it. He was probably just having a bad day - and then it got a whole lot worse.
Didn't he even follow the Martha Stewart case?