The video captured what looks like the lion's share of the event, and at minimum the most important part.
It's not that I know what happened before the video started; it's that I can deduce what DIDN'T happen before it started. In other words, based on her behaviour when the video starts one can reasonably surmise that he did NOT threaten her because if he had, she would not berate him, approach him, and threaten him the way she did. See how you can begin putting pieces of a puzzle together working backwards?
There's not enough money in psych to interest me, but I'd kill at it. Besides I find most human behaviour, like Karen's, simple and boring. Granted, I've diverted that knowledge to business/marketing which is more lucrative. Success at those is largely about understanding people - what they do, why they do it, what they desire, and so on.
Different people behave differently when scared. Fighting back is a defence too. Most people will protect their child first even if they are scared, and many people love their pets almost as much as other love their children. So, no, you cannot deduct all you are saying from tat video, or, at the very least, what you deduct is MOST PROBABLY right, but far from "ALMOST SURE" right. And you are still very conveniently try to avoid the issue of the dog treats. Please, play along, and provide a theory that include ALL facts and explain the behaviour of ALL people on the video.
Here is my theory:
The guy does not like people having dogs off leash and he wanted to :teach them a lesson". He takes dog treats with him so that when people do not immediately put dogs on leash at his request, he will try to give the treats to dogs to make dog owners to immediately call their dogs because they are afraid that what he is giving may be a poison. He chose women to do this stunt, since he is afraid that a large man (especially African-american man) with dog can complement putting the dog on leash with a nice hook in his head. So, I think, the discussion could have been as follows
M: The dogs must be on leash
W: no reaction
M: I said, the dogs must be on leash. Put it in leash right away
W: get lost
M: I said, on the leash. Or I will do something you will not like
W: getting scared, doing nothing
M: Calls the dog, tries to gives him the treat
W: thinks the treat is the poison. She is very scared and angry on the man, he calls her dog, moves toward the man to protect her dog. Finally, she grabbed her dog, she is still scared and angry. She does not know what the man will do next. She is still chaotically comes toward him (as if the dog still needs protection) and away from him (because she remembers the vague threat he made)
M: starts recording, suddenly starts talking in a very calm voice
W: Still afraid of the man and confused. Now she interprets anything that he does as a threat. She is sill in "protect my dog" mode though. As she is no longer able to think straight due to stress and interprets anything that guy does as a threat, and the guy does video recording, she wants him to stop it.
The video starts. The women want the guy to stop what he is doing (as she is still interpret it as a physical threat due to her state of mind and fear), so, she threatens him will calling the cops in hope he will stop and go away, and, when he does not do so, he calls the cops and say what she beliefs (at that time) is true.
How about this story? Do I have proof of it? No. Does it contradict any evidence? No. What is more likely: my story of the fact that the girl is a racist who wanted to get a revenge on a black guy who tried to order her? I would not bet even odds on my story. But I would definitely bet 1:20 odds on my story. My story is PROBABLY. It MIGHT BE true. I am pretty sure that in 20 of similar instances, at least once my story is true. hence, we have the reasonable doubt. Hence, we should not convict her and she should not lose her job. It is better to let 20 murderers go free than to convict one innocent person.
You see, I agree that you are right with 95% probability. Yet, because of the remaining 5%, she should not be convicted even in "public opinion court" and should not be fired. You see, a person who knows the real truth but cannot proof it is not allowed to make the judgement, since who do we know that he is not lying himself.