Law in MN for 3rd is: (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.
I don't know who Andrew McCarthy is. But there is no language about the action: "thus imperils everyone in the vicinity."
I think the jury will find that he acted without regard for Mr. Floyd's life. There were signs that he was unconscious for several minutes possibly without a pulse. And no aid was rendered while restraint continued.
Edit: I am not saying I would have done any better if placed in Chauvin's shoes. As the above poster notes the mob is quite the factor. I may have started preforming leg drops on the dude just to spite the crowd.
Andrew McCarthy is a columnist for National Review whom I've found to be a straight-shooter; he doesn't seem to have an agenda. He served as Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The article I quoted from is here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/the-george-floyd-murder-trial-a-charging-nightmare/
A further quote from the article, which cites the exact same statute that you did:
"To understand the controversy, we need to quote the language of the relevant statute, and note my italics. Under Section 609.195(a) of the state penal code, a defendant is guilty of third-degree murder if:
without intent to effect the death of any person, [the defendant] causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.
Back in October, Judge Cahill granted the motion to dismiss this charge. Under the plain language of the statute, and the well-settled concept of 'depraved-indifference' homicide, the accused must commit an act that is depraved because it is indifferent to human life, and thus imperils everyone in the vicinity. That is not what Chauvin did. His conduct was specifically targeted at Floyd. He was not indifferent to human life in general. If you believe, as I do, that he acted in a reckless manner that was heedless of Floyd’s well-being and created an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury, that is precisely what the above-described
manslaughter charge alleges
."
And, I think the key quote to understanding depraved-indifference is:
"Depraved-indifference murder is not supposed to be a sleight-of-hand that elevates manslaughter to murder, or that effectively turns an unintentional killing into an intentional murder by substituting depraved indifference for malice aforethought. It is meant to address the sociopath who, say, fires a gun into a crowd, not seeking to kill or wound anyone in particular, but who poses a lethal risk to everyone."
Concepts have understood meanings in precedent and common law, and I'm trusting that McCarthy has studied and understands the meaning and relevant case law of these concepts. Maybe he's wrong. But if he is, then I truly wonder what the difference is between manslaughter and murder in the 3rd degree in Minnesota.