No, it's not. His legal obligation was to not put himself in the position he put himself in. You do understand that, right?
Okay, let's assume the jury got it right, and Travis (with all lawful intention - after all, his intention was to detain a thief for the police, a commendable act) violated some technicality of false imprisonment law. At the point of Arbery's attack upon him, in his effort to wrest his shotgun from his grasp, what was Travis's legal obligation, assuming he wished not to compound his technical violation of the law (unbeknownst to him) with a murder charge?
If we assume the jury got it right, nothing else matters, does it.
