The opinion on this is kind of generic, because not really sure of the purpose for the characters...
If the sniper was assigned to take out the critter, did he hesitate and just cause his own team's demise? Or was he already partnered with the critter to get his own edge in "the game"?
Tsung Tsu writes : "Never under-estimate the power of one's enemy." (I cite "The Art of War") So this could work either way. However, it would seem the sniper would have been in partnership to get the team on the ground annihilated.
Then we snag around the motivation for such an action. Was he denied a fundamental promotion? Is he thus on his way out of the force? (Current mil-spec's require that an officer is forced out after two pass-overs for promotion.)
I guess, my greatest criticism of this is a bit of a lack of understanding (and maybe communication)... At the same time, why else would you compose a piece based on killing out your whole team?
I think you would do well to check out a few documents of "friendly fire incidents" and see why and where prominent leadership died over a terribly minor abuse or a lack of communication and quick enough response.
As to the work... It was in fine order. The animation was fluid and cohesive. The VA was in time, neither too fast nor too slow. And none of the plotline was hopelessly skewed toward one destination or the other... (at least not yet...)