I'm saying it's not reasonable to expect violent retribution if you're on the side of the law, asking people to obey the law.
The context is that the threats have already been made -- an unreasonable act. The focus of fast's comments, as I read them, was how a person deals with that unreasonable situation. In that situation, some threats are like to be hollow emotional statements for which there is little reason to believe the speaker will follow through. Other threats may be literally threatening or planning something harmful with the intention of following through. There is also a lot of muddled grey area in between.
What fast seemed to be talking about is what a person does when a reasonable assessment of a threat puts it in that second category where the speaker seems to actually intend follow through. This in no way means that the threat itself is reasonable.
