Ok, I watched the video, and it’s not at all as you describe. Some guy walks closely by the bodyguard, and the bodyguard responds by shoving them through a display stand of products and onto the ground. The bodyguard was clearly the instigator of violence.
Maybe the guy said nasty stuff to the bodyguard, but I saw no contact or physical threat. It’s only bad bodyguards and bouncers that get into fights. Good ones deescalate instead, just to avoid this sort of thing, because they realize they’re guarding a political reputation as well as a person.
At the 0:10s mark of the video, the ex-stabber makes a move on the mayor and gets in the bodyguard's face, trading words. The SFChronicle reporter noted that critical detail you've overlooked.
Seeing the threat depends on one's bias. The mob that hates police and/or the mayor (he's jewish, billionaire, etc) can't see it, because all violence is supposedly the system's fault. Verbal threats are only real if the system does it.
For me, I lived next to the Tenderloin for two years & was threatened at knife-point by a nearby homeless. I think the risk warrants the shove. Maybe if the bodyguard hadn't shoved, the mayor would be fine. Or maybe the mob would have been much, much happier that day.
I’ll repeat my point that a good bodyguard stops shit rather than starting it. That idiot meatsack shouldn’t have been let anywhere near a bodyguard job. He failed at every aspect of the role, including getting his ass kicked.
Your continued reference to “ex-stabber” and the like make much of your dialog sound like a political dog whistle. E.g., repeated caricatures of opposition, like “all violence is supposedly the system’s fault.” It makes it rather exhausting to try to engage with good faith.
Just "SF stabber mayor" would have been enough; it's fine to admit you were just extremely lazy and quick to jump to dismiss GP's claim, and apologize. It was major ish news.
