To give context, the 2nd degrees murder charges are still there. He's still being charged with murder and manslaughter, but they're not going to bother with third degree murder.
This is what is bizarre about that...the story indicates that Murder 3 is JUST for "shooting in to crowd" situations but I...I don't think that's quite right.
Let's compare the text:
Remember, this is "unintentional murder", so the first definitions wouldn't apply, and the second unintentional wouldn't either because it is limited in scope to be irrelevant (that's what comes after "or").
Second Degree:
Subd. 2.
Unintentional murders.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
Third Degree:
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
Unintentional second degree murder relies on that felony offense aspect, which I don't think we saw Chauvin commit in that video.
The only logically consistent explanation which takes facts in evidence at face value that I can come up as a dumbass not-lawyer is the theory that Chauvin being convicted of Second Degree Manslaughter would provide the requisite felony offense to satisfy the murder 2 statute, but that doesn't sound like the correct way of going about things at all...
The less insane legal theory would be that this is putting the ball on the tee to defeat murder 2 in court, but the logical reasoning to get there seems faulty to me.
I'll point out that Justine Damond's shooting was...well, a shooting, and strictly speaking any reckless gunshots which kill someone could qualify for the elements of Third Degree Murder given how bullets and ricochets work which satisfies the faulty sounding logic the judge appears to be using...I guess?
Final thought, possibly crazier, is that they are crossing off murder 3 because because they don't have evidence for it. Which would be admitting that Chauvin's actions weren't
eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life and that they can only prove that Chauvin's actions "
creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another" which would be in line with restraining an ODing junkie until they died but not actually causing that dead with direct actions to harm that person.
For clarity if that's the actual theory in place, that would explain the faulty logic to get there: we can't actually admit that Chauvin didn't actually kill Floyd with that knee because that might be worse practically than him getting off on Murder 2 and dinged on Man 2. After all
Benjamin Cru the people rioted for Murder 2 and by golly they will get it...right up until they don't.