How on Earth do you argue that for the Arbery case?!

In the Rittenhouse case, the "aggressors" wirer the three white men who were shot. They chased and/or behaved aggressively towards him, he retaliated. That's why Rittenhouse was judged to have acted in self defence.

In Arbery's case, the aggressors were the three white men who chased Arbery down and murdered him. They weren't defending themselves or anybody else, Arbery wasn't armed, and most importantly, he didn't put himself in any position, except for daring to jog in their neighbourhood whilst having black skin.

Really struggling to see the equivalence you're drawing here.