What makes it clear that something is a real threat?

If there's lack of motive, lack of planning, and lack of weapons, then is it a threat? Everything about this case says that there was no evidence that it was real, and that all exculpatory evidence (eg, the context this was smack talk, and the "j/k" and "lol" disclaimer) were removed from the evidence presented to the judge.

You say that unusual expressions are more deserving of investigation, and should have a lower threshold than 'normal' phrases like "I'm so angry with you that I could to kill you." However, in the context, the person accused had just been insulted by being called "crazy", and the response seems to have a riff on what "crazy" might really mean, quickly followed by the disclaimers.

Where is the actual threat? I don't see how this teenager is a real threat, just like you don't see how those other cases are real threats.

For that matter, and from what I understand, the person who reported the message is from Canada. Canada has a different cultural expectation of what free speech means than the US. If it takes a single report to make the sort of complaint about "unusual speech", do we need to accept anyone's standard threshold anywhere in the world?

If a DC police officer, who sometimes works as a motorcycle escort for the First Lady, can jokingly say that he want to kill her, and purportedly shows another officer a picture of the weapon he will use to do so, then surely that's a much more serious threat, with specific access and ability. Yet, that officer wasn't charged with a crime, nor sent to prison with a high bond. As I understand, he had desk duty while the investigation occurred.

Why is this case with the teenager so deserving of a disproportionately high bond, compared to other threats which are seemingly more credible?

Recently in Oklahoma, "A Norman man threatened via email to kill Gov. Mary Fallin's “child” and McClain County Sheriff Don Hewitt, apparently because he is upset about the death of his own child." "Helling, who told investigators he sent the emails from the Norman Public Library, was arrested June 7 on “unrelated warrants” and booked into the Cleveland County jail. His bail has been set at $20,000, records show."

Last year in Utah, "A Utah man who police say threatened to assassinate Gov. Gary Herbert is now facing multiple felony charges." "The 52-year-old Baker is being held in the Salt Lake County jail. Bail is set at $25,007."

So we have people who have specifically threatened to kill a governor (and in one case the governor's (grown) child), and had a bail of only $25,000 or so.

Why is this teenager's case so extreme so as to require a bail of $500,000?

I've searched, but couldn't find a similar case with a bail that was this high. The closest I found was from a few years ago: "A Philadelphia man was charged with telephoning death threats into 911 against Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly, authorities said Monday." "Fisher is being held on $100,000 bail after his arraignment Saturday in Manhattan Criminal Court on 10 counts of making a terroristic threat, authorities said."

I've instead found things like earlier this week, where "An Owatonna man faces felony charges after he allegedly threatened to kill a man while waving a baseball bat. Andrew John Kramer, 24, was charged with second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon and making a terroristic threat in Steele County District Court on Monday morning. ... Because of his criminal history and the possible public safety risk, Judge Joseph Bueltel set Kramer’s outright bail at $30,000 and his conditional bail at $15,000."

Do you seriously believe that these cases of direct threats against specific people, including threatening to use a baseball bat, is less serious, and less deserving of high bail, than what the teenager did?

Why?