Presumably, threatening to kill people is a crime in Germany, so the German police had the authority to open an independent investigation.

Are you saying that one should be allowed to threaten to kill people in one country from another, and not be held accountable?

No, he definitely was not saying that.

That seemed to be the implication.

OP specifically asked if it was pursuant to an MLAT obligation. That alone makes it clear they were asking in earnest.

And yet OP also asked how California had jurisdiction in Germany, which implies that the question was more of a passive-aggressive disapproval. Even if it was MLAT, California still wouldn't have jurisdiction in Germany. OP seems to be implying "fuck off California, you have no jurisdiction in Germany".

The whole thing seems to be more about shared moral responsibility rather than MLAT, which is what s73v3r was getting it.

Really? Cause that sounds exactly like what he was saying.

Are you saying that asking how something works is the same as saying the same thing happening is horribly wrong?

Don't pretend you don't know that "How, exactly did X happen" doesn't indicate that you disapprove of X.