Wait, what?!

In one case, three white men hunted down a black man and, while attacking him, claim they felt threatened and fatally shot him.

In another case, one white man was attacked by one white man, then hunted down by three others, and the fleeing man fired on those whom he couldn't escape.

The Rittenhouse acquittal says that when you're hunted down and attacked then it is self-defense to use lethal force.

So it says that Arbery was justified in trying to get McMichael's gun, and would have been justified in using it, too. And therefore that Arbery's killers ought to be guilty of murder. If he had gotten the gun and killed them (while they were attacking him, not if they started to flee), Arbery should have been acquitted.

Maybe it won't turn out that way, but it seems to me that you've got the logic exactly backwards here from a logical perspective.

Of course, when racism gets involved everything can get twisted upside-down and backwards. But I'm not giving up hope yet (even if the signs in the Arbery case are worrying, like seemingly preferentially dismissing black jurors).