^^^ All true and all correct.
Basically, we are (again) seeing the inevitable result of the new police training, in which officers are taught that enforcing "compliance" takes precedence over communicating. It's what they teach in the academies these days, and too many of these stories include quotations either from an officer or from his/her superiors that the victim was not "complying" with the officer's orders.
I've seen it in action to a ridiculous extreme. A few years ago I had occasion to call the firearms unit of my state's State Police, to ask a routine, administrative question. My call was taken by a female state trooper. The first thing she asked was my name and date of birth. Now, I know they use name and date of birth as the identifiers when writing a report, but she was the "dope of the day," just sitting there to respond to questions. No crime was in progress and no crime was being reported, so there was no report to be written.
I declined to answer, and she repeated the demand. I declined again, and she repeated the demand again. This went on for several iterations, and with each repetition her voice became louder and more strident. I knew what was going on -- I could hear her "command voice" training kicking into play.
Except we weren't on the street, and she didn't have any way to enforce her demands with a gun, taser, or dog. So I hung up. Fifteen minutes later, I called back and was connected to the sergeant in charge of the unit. We had a nice, fifteen minute chat, he answered my questions, and I was never asked for my name and date of birth.
It's all in the training, and the training model today is dangerous to all involved.
