[ScubaDiver]

"Unfortunately for her, she had a reasonable duty to be sure she had the taser in her hand."

While probably not incorrect in the abstract, what you describe is not part of the statute. This is the problem the state is going to face. Instead, the TWO elements that are required is that:

by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk,

AND consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another

The MN manslaughter statute is very unusual in this regard, creating an obligation on the state to demonstrate that the defendant not only acted negligently but consciously intended to act negligently.

Simple incompetence that results in death is not enough to sate the statutory elements of this crime.

[pierrem15]

You may be correct: the mens rea requirement is tough to meet, which is why a "reasonable person" standard is usually applied to determine recklessness. Here they have to establish both recklessness and consciousness of that recklessness.

Would be interesting to see prior cases that show how the Minnesota courts have applied this standard, although I still think any civilian in similar circumstances would also be charged.