Offline
That 10 minutes makes the poor health/drug arguments weak
What was the judges rationale for initially dismissing the 3rd degree charge?
This seems to be a textbook example of "without regard for human life"
According to the article, "Historically, third-degree murder has been used to prosecute drug dealers who sold deadly products but weren't planning to kill specific individuals. But in 2019, former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond after she called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in progress in the alley near her house. Noor fatally shot Damond from the passenger seat of a squad car, firing across his partner, who had been driving. The state Court of Appeals narrowly upheld his conviction, and the state Supreme Court will hear the case in June. Noor is currently serving a 10½-year sentence. He is the only police officer ever to be convicted of murder for an on-duty incident in Minnesota.
Explaining his decision to reinstate the third-degree murder charge Thursday, Cahill noted that the Noor ruling established a legal precedent that "murder in the third degree applies even if the person's intent and acts are directed at a single person," and therefore the charge could be applicable to the Chauvin case."
So, I think the reason the Judge initially dismissed it is because he thought it only applied to cases where the defendant acted recklessly, but not to a specific person. But, the Court of appeal ruled differently.