I dunno. I feel like this incident mirrors the Rittenhouse incident almost to the exact detail and that's how the juries saw them.
In both cases you have three men who give chase and attempt to force an up close, physical confrontation, matched against one man who does everything he can to escape. The three continue to pursue. And once the one is out of options for fleeing the scene he is left with no other option but to fight back.
The juries in both cases determined that it was within the rights of the man who was being chased, and who exhausted all of his avenues of flight, to fight back. They also decided that whatever happened after that point was the responsibility of the three who were giving chase, and not the one who was given no choice but to fight back.
In the Rittenhouse case, that meant that Rittenhouse was not responsible for the deaths or injuries of the three men he shot, as they were the aggressors and therefore responsible for what happened.
In this case, that meant that Arbery was not responsible for his own death (as the defense tried to argue) but that the men who chased him down and pushed the issue were responsible for what happened. All of them. Because they worked as team to force the situation into a violent (and ultimately deadly) confrontation that Arbery was clearly trying to avoid.
It's actually pretty gratifying to see juries agree so clearly on what constitutes an aggressor and a victim and what differentiates murder from self defense, even with regard to incidents that turned out so differently but were so parallel in the way they developed.