"Priority of life" was developed for an 'active shooter' situation, not day-to-day policing. It also doesn't suggest that an officer should take a bullet for someone else, bodyguard style. It's talking about who to protect first, and emergency workers are lower on the list because they have chosen to be there and they generally have the training to deal with the situation.
Okay, you win. So let's apply the priority of life to the scenario described in the article.
Are there any victims? No.
Are there any innocent bystanders? No.
Are there any non-police responders? No.
Are there any police? Yes.
Are there any 'bad guys'? Yes.
So, running down the list... in the situation where the police are apprehending someone... hey, police welfare does come before apprehendee welfare. In the article's scenario, police welfare does come first.
The guy asleep in bed is an 'innocent bystander', not a 'bad guy'. If officer safety was actually the motivating concern here, then they absolutely would have spoken with security (if for no other reason than to get a quick idea of the apartment layout).
The guy asleep in bed is a 'bad guy', as those police saw the situation. Yes, they were wrong and stupid. But that was their interpretation of the situation.
"Priority of life" for law enforcement is:
1) Victims
2) Innocent Bystanders
3a) Other Responders (Fire/EMS)
3b) Law Enforcement Officers
4) Bad Guys