There is a legal distinction and definition, Legal Eagle on YouTube had an episode on exactly this a few weeks ago, about that the DA might have picked a more difficult crime to prove than murder. IANAL but IIRC the terrorism charge has to prove there is an intent to intimidate larger swaths of government or bodies of people. Just "other CEOs of Health Companies are now scared" is not enough.
> if you (try to) use violence against civilians for political/ideological/religious motives
A person driving over a person with a van with explicit goal of "Jihad against Christians" would be terrorism, because of the objective, no matter how many people get hurt.
While it seems clear to me that this can be considered "terrorism", it would also seem like it isn't breaking against "anti-terrorism laws" or whatever the charge is in the US.
Yeah, I guess it kind of make sense the US has a somewhat different definition of terrorism that the rest of the world I suppose. I think in most jurisdictions I'm familiar with, the amount of victims isn't the consideration if it's "terrorism" or not, but rather if there is a objective to destabilize the state, gravely disturb public peace or provoke a state of error in a specific segment of the population. Basically, the purpose/objective takes a vital importance in seeing if something is terrorism or not.
But again, makes sense that the US would have different definition.