Seems to me that only one of the two conditions there have to do with motivation ("angry"). "Threatening" is judged by those who were the (purported) victims. In other words, if they felt threatened, then it was done in a threatening manner.I'm troubled by the way the law they are charged with violating is written. It is much like the hate crime laws where someone has to decide the motivation for the act. In this case,
" in an angry or threatening manner"