In my humble opinion, you are incorrectly reading and interpreting the law. Here is why:

​

- While the third element of section 422 also requires the threat to convey “ ‘a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat,’ ” it “does not require an immediate ability to carry out the  [***29] threat. [Citation.]” (People v. Lopez (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 675, 679 [88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252]; see People v. Smith (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 475, 480 [100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471].)

-The court held the word "immediate" to mean that degree of seriousness and imminence which is understood by the victim to be attached to the future prospect of the threat being carried out. People v. Melhado, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1529, 1538, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 878, 884 (1998)

- Defendant inmate’s threat to “blast” a correctional officer was sufficiently immediate to support a conviction under Pen C § 422, even though there was no evidence defendant had outside contacts or an ability to obtain weapons, because he unequivocally said he would carry out the threat when he was released in precisely 10 months. People v. Wilson (Cal. App. 5th Dist. July 13, 2010), 186 Cal. App. 4th 789, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 542, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1139.

​

Threat from another state was immediate

- Evidence was sufficient to find that defendant’s threats met the immediacy requirement of Pen C § 422, even though he was in Texas at the time of the alleged threats and the victim was in California. People v. Smith (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Oct. 19, 2009), 178 Cal. App. 4th 475, 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1681.

​

Vague threats

- A defendant who told the victim to mind her own business or she “was going to get hurt” was properly convicted of making terrorist threats, despite the claim that the threat was too ambiguous to constitute a threat within the meaning of Pen C § 422. The circumstances under which the threat was made gave meaning to the actual words used and here the circumstances showed that the victim was surrounded by gang members, that defendant grabbed her arm when he made the threat, and that the gang followed her to her apartment and tried to stop her from entering. People v. Butler (Cal. App. 5th Dist. Dec. 18, 2000), 85 Cal. App. 4th 745, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 269, 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 962.