I don't recall advocating not investigating this because the affected systems are emergency ones. I'm advocating against claiming there is danger without investigating ('abundance of caution' is usually shorthand for 'we could check this, but we're not going to bother and just make decisions without information because, hey, no one ever got fired for saying no, right?') My point is that even if there is potential issue that is highly unlikely, it will still have to line up with several other highly unlikely things for it to be a problem, which is a fairly good definition of 'safe' in modern complex systems engineering.

As to Kobe Bryant, yes his helicopter flew into terrain (unsurprisingly, 'flew into terrain' is incredibly common in aircraft accidents. Sadly, most of them are perfectly serviceable when they do so). There is no indication that the issue was a radar altimeter (if one was even installed, I don't believe they're required in that class), much less one that was being interfered with. I don't think the NTSB report is out yet, but I expect the cause will be what it commonly is: a pilot (with a famous and rich client who wanted to get somewhere quickly) taking their vehicle into marginal weather conditions beyond what they and their aircraft are competent to handle. Working on that problem will save a hell of a lot more lives than investigating 'may be a problem' that no one can even describe a mechanism for.

The Kobe crash could have been prevented by many things.

Existing synthetic vision systems would have easily prevented this. They're not even that expensive - built in systems can be had for a few tens of thousands of dollars, or non-certified iPad based systems for a few hundred.

That crash was likely due to disorientation in dense fog with an experienced, IFR rated pilot but who didn't experience much fog in LA. A radar altimeter would have been unlikely to help.

The Kobe crash could have been avoided by him driving his daughter to school rather than wasting resources on a helicopter every day.

And the potential car crash could be avoided by flying a helicopter. What kind of argument is this? I don't even think it's one.

I'm not really sure the 2020 Calabasa crash is a relevant example. That helicopter had a radio altimeter, and it surely wasn't being jammed. And before hitting the ground, the helicopter was descending at 20 m/s. The last known intent of the pilot was to climb, not descend. Some witnesses on the ground report that the helicopter sounded like it was malfunctioning before the crash. I do not particularly credit eye witnesses, but their story seems to fit with the rapid descent of the helicopter more than an altimeter issue.

Another point I should make about the Bryant crash (now that i've looked it up): while the pilot was IFR rated and the helicopter theoretically had the required instruments, the owning company was not certified for IFR passenger service. That means he the flight was filed as VFR. One of the things they teach you when you get an IFR rating is that you don't fly into IFR weather (IFC for the pedants) during a VFR flight without a pre-filed plan. His IFR training didn't teach him to fly in those conditions---it taught him to avoid them. They didn't have an IFR flight plan or clearance, so flying into a fog bank and persisting in that flight was forbidden and if unavoidable would constitute an emergency. Which is why I tend to look pretty hard at the pilot in this case, not the instruments.