Lethal force to defend property?

You don't have the right to choke somebody but the owner should have the right to use the necessary force to restrain someone until police arrive.

I found the bit about how black women shoplifters should be respected a little funny

Where is the evidence that she shoplifted?

Where is the evidence that she shoplifted?

Workers should be able to use physical force to stop employers from stealing the produce of their labour.

The security alarm went off, generally a pretty good indication that something may not have been paid for.

Your right. As long as she was still in the store there is no evidence of shoplifting. The suspect only has to say that her intention was to pay for the item. In Calif. if a suspect has left the store and caught with stolen goods and has no money on them they can be charged with commercial burglary since they had no money to pay for the items which means they entered the store with the intention of stealing the items.

I could have left the shoplifter out of the sentence and I still would have found it funny. Although the women who schooled the shop owner on cherishing black women didn't know if she had stolen anything or not so I assumed she was including women who shoplift in her admonition.

That happens all the time. Happened to me and other shoppers in quite a few plces, all we do is stop and offer to let the shop employees check our bags, as this lady did (they often decline).

All of the video evidence points towards him being the aggressor. There is no evidence that she stole anything or that she hit him. However, there is evidence that he attacked and choked her.

Did you watch the video?

They found an item in her bag which she hadn't paid for and then she became aggressive once she was caught.

Or do you think the store owner just randomly attacks potential customers?

Yes, because video evidence suggests that he did.

That did not happen, unless you were watching a different video. Do you have the link?

You will hear at 0:41 the question "Did she pay for it?" and then a second later she can be seen trying to leave the shop. That would leads me to believe that an item was found which supports the owner's account of the event.

[video="youtube;piSgPHadS14"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piSgPHadS14[/video]

"Did she pay for it" could well be a response to an unproven accusation. That's your evidence? Wow.

Unless the footage actually showed the eyelashes being taken from her bag or her stealing the eyelashes, there is no evidence that she did.

That and the account from the store owner. The evidence is that she was seen doing it.

Do you honestly believe that if something didn't happen on video then there is no evidence?

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. A video with the attacker saying "did she pay for it"? And his word that she did steal would not hold up in court, fortunately.

The attacker didn't say it, the other person said it. The same one that can be heard calling the police while the fighting occurs.

It is a good thing he has CCTV and 2 other witnesses then.

What is your experience of the US legal system in Illinois with regards to how they view evidence? Because you seem pretty sure of yourself.

The shop owner is the one who attacked her. So if the shop owner would say that she stole from him. Like I said, the question of "did she pay for it?" could be a mere response to a false accusation. Your evidence is very weak.

Are you suggesting that the standard of proof does not require that the offence had been committed "beyond reasonable doubt"?