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.
I understand why you wish to evade the question as asked.
I answered the question, you just didn't see the answer, what with your blinders on.
If the jury got it right, then Travis gave up his right to self-defense by illegally detaining Arberry. So anything bad that happened after that was his fault, including shooting Arbery, himself, or a bystander.
So his "legal obligation" with respect to what he did from that time forward is a moot point, doesn't matter, and is 100% irrelevant.
