re: #1020 Targetpractice

Murder II also requires ill will and spite, both of which have been ruled in numerous cases cannot be formed in an instant but require time to form. Barring that, the best the State can hope for is manslaughter.

And if he had gun drawn either at the time of the confrontation or during it, why not shoot Martin immediately? Why did Martin say nothing about a gun being pointed at him? And how did Zimmerman succeed in avoiding dropping it when brought to the ground?

To answer the remainder of your questions:
a) How do you know he didn’t shoot as soon as possible? (Hey, what are you [silence of dropped phone])
b) dark
c) More likely to keep than to drop something in hand when tackled when tackling is from the front. Especially when it’s a lifeline of some sort.

fwiw, the question of whether the gun was out before or not is one of those things that a better investigation would have uncovered. The fact it’s an unknown and now unknowable element means it’s best to just ignore it. The defense won’t raise it because then the “reasonable expectation” question gets raised - speculation becomes allowed by the prosecution. (So he went into this while keeping the weapon holstered? really?)

Also I will remind you that “reasonable doubt” has some limits. The prosecution is not required to prove every single element. It is required only to prove that the only other explanations for the charged crime require unreasonable thrashing about for explanation - like crossing a dark block-long yard without a flashlight when searching for a street sign when there is one under a street light half a block behind you.