No one has a problem with threats against a person or chemical coercion. "Psychological coercion" is dangerously vague.

What does happen occasionally is that a girl sleeps with somebody with whom she deeply regrets sleeping with, and so she says it was rape. Admitting as vague a concept as psychological coercion makes it easy to find grounds for a false rape accusation. I deeply empathise with the desire to broaden the ability to prosecute rape. It is by nature often very difficult to prove. But that has to be balanced with a desire to protect the innocent even at the cost of letting a guilty person go free every now and then.

The entire issue at hand is whether he could be said to have threatened to kill people or request others to do it. Your statement assumes your side's argument is correct from the start, and there's a specific term for that kind of silliness, known as "begging the question". From whatever side of the debate you look at it, you've just written a really dumb opinion.

Did anyone else read this in Michael Weston's voice?

Or to counter other weapons.

No it should be call the fullautomobile.