This was a direct claim from you. You did not even present it as a possible scenerio, you said she striked him in the face, multiple times. Is this something that you think is visible from the video? If not why did you make this claim?
It is clearly visible in the video. When you conceded that it could be an "angry push" rather than a "strike", I didn't need to belabor the point. An "angry push" is sufficient to justify a forceful response.
Nope, all I have said is that she did not strike him in the face and that her movement towards him could be anything including a shove.
You say "Nope" and then describe only circumstances where she used force: a "shove" (previously "angry push") is a use of force.
Nevermind proportionality aspect
"Proportionality" is not a factor in the use of defensive force. The relevant consideration is "reasonably believed necessary to stop the threat".
Where defensive force is justified, substantially greater force can be justified. If a relatively lesser threat cannot be reasonably stopped except with a substantially greater defensive force, the substantially greater defensive force is justified.
"Reasonably believed to be necessary to stop the threat".
The threat in this case is the use of her arms to [strike|angry push|shove] him, which is the forceful behavior she was engaging in when she initially stood.
You have to show that it was unreasonable to believe she was attempting to continue this behavior if you want to demonstrate that his use of force was unjustified.