transmit any additional visual data to explain the story. If you follow the links, you will see a big cut (or scar?) on the right/rear side of his head. Usually the graphics are at the bottom of the screen and not floating towards the middle of the screen obscuring what they are trying to show. Dave Surls spews: "An armed man, calls someone an "asshole", and then starts pursuing said someone...and it's not initiating a quarrel, nor is it a threat...in the addled mind of SPQR. " Except that's not the definition that Surls provided. AGGRESOR[sic]: One who first employs hostile force. The party who first offers violence or offense. He who begins a quarrel or dispute, either by threatening or striking another. I think that "addled" best describes someone who types in a quotation ... as Surls did ... and can't even read it competently. But it actually is irrelevant because Black's Law Dictionary does not control whether or not self-defense applies. Surls wants to claim that Zimmerman is an "aggressor" for the purposes of the self-defense but has no actual evidence that Zimmerman began the physical confrontation. He continues to attack others, claiming that their statements lack evidence, falsely, and yet the foundational claim of Dave Surls has zero evidence. This is because Surls continues to make up a definition of "aggressor" that simply is not the law. Following Martin does not make Zimmerman the aggressor. Calling Martin a name does not make Zimmerman the "aggressor". Nor does