Really, you really able to deduct all of that just from that video? Wow, you must be a genius. Although let me cite one famous quote: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.".
By the way, just to play, could you, please, describe what you believe has happened before the video starts. In your description, please, make sure to take into account the dog treats that the gut had with him (both how he used them in this incident and the reason for having them). And try to make your story consistent with what the video shows.
Yes I can deduct that from the video. Not a genius. This is also how courts determine guilt or innocence since they rarely have 100% of the facts available.
As I and many others have said multiple times, a woman that is threatened does not approach a man that has threatened her, does not display the confidence, authority, and control that this woman did behaviorally. Likewise, if they've been threatened and are relaying calling the cops, they state (especially in anger) what threats the person has made to them. "I'm calling the cops because you just threatened to X,Y,Z me, you asshole". That didn't happen here. Everything about her physical and verbal approach suggests she was imposing her will on someone she believed she could abuse without recourse. You must use these clues to up your deduction game.
If you require a full video to come to any conclusion, you're unfit to preside in a court room or serve on a jury. These require some basic common sense and reasonableness.
In all of your "probabilities" scenarios - one being that she's not racist (which she is and it is blatantly obvious to just about everyone else) - and your lies (that he was a poorly dressed threatening black stereotype) - the likelihood of what you believe happened before the recording drops to zero.