'Twould appear that they latched on to subparagraph B without first reading paragraph 1.17-A §210. TERRORIZING
1. A person is guilty of terrorizing if that person in fact communicates to any person a threat to commit or to cause to be committed a crime of violence dangerous to human life, against the person to whom the communication is made or another, and the natural and probable consequence of such a threat, whether or not such consequence in fact occurs, is:
A. To place the person to whom the threat is communicated or the person threatened in reasonable fear that the crime will be committed.
B. To cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transport or to cause the occupants of a building to be moved to or required to remain in a designated secured area.
Let's say that instead someone walking around with a gun (fake or real) in his trousers, it was a person walking around with a turban wrapped around their head that prompted a location to put itself into lockdown.
What if the establishment locked its doors in response to seeing a police officer walking around with a gun? Think there's any chance the officer would be charged with terrorizing?
Was a threat communicated by either?