There's calling the police, and then there's publishing their phone number in the hopes of directing an angry mob.
Angry mobs are dangerous and volatile and can push prosecutors to overreact. And prosecutors and politicians love to overreact when it comes to hacking.
He published the number of the local law enforcement agency. That is not directing an angry mob, that's helping people voice their opinion to the people responsible for enforcing laws.
Bogging down the local police dispatch isn't a responsible way to voice your opinion.
Imagine: you're a local and you're trying to call the police. But, you can't, because the number is busy. Or you wait forever on hold, because people on the internet are angry about a reckless driving incident that happened weeks ago and that the police already know about.
OP called the police, that's enough. They know about it now. If you want to express your opinion, write the editor of Wired or, if you're really angry, the local district attorney.
I think the level of exposure comes into play here. I'm not sure there's enough people that will make that call from the crowd here to cause an actual problem, but if it's an emergency response number better to not risk it, so I do agree with your reasoning to a point. Perhaps directing people to call a number that is not expected to handle emergency requests would have been more appropriate (and I see OP has amended his comment to remove the number).
Angry mobs are dangerous and volatile and can push prosecutors to overreact. And prosecutors and politicians love to overreact when it comes to hacking.