GP isn't talking about any particular consequence of phone calls. It's talking about the specific consequence that, because American cops have a tendency to murder people instead of arresting them, you can use them as a hit squad with a simple phone call.

Like what happened here: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/kansas-man-killed-in-swa...

When I said "particular", I meant it as a synonym to "specific". If that's wrong, my apologies, but that's how I understand it.

You're correct, "particular" and "specific" are synonyms, and I concede that I might have been unclear. I'll try again.

What bothers me, and I imagine the original commentator, is that swatting works at all. It is deeply concerning that police in America are so reliably violent that they can be used as a fairly effective murder weapon.

Discussing the fact that communication mediums that allow arbitrary messages to be sent allows one to construct abstract scenarios in which such a transmission causes a chain of events that leads to someone's death feels like it misses that point.

It bothers me too. It's just that the part about the phone call doesn't seem relevant to me. If the caller had used text or video instead, the problem is the same.

Availability of military-style shoot-first-ask-later force to anyone is a problem, regardless of the communication mechanism used to request it.

Hm, I think the the other poster didn't really mean the put the communication medium in the spotlight here and was just referring to police brutality tongue in cheek.

That's my impression atleast, so I'd guess you agree.

Murder is generally bad, but making it generally impossible doesn't seem like a realistic goal though. IMO a slightly more approachable problem is the militarization of local police forces.