That's a very convoluted interpretation that contradicts commonsensical reading of that clause (remember the judge urging the jurors to use common sense if legal lingo is unclear?).

After listening to the judge explain it, it's not convoluted to me. Intent is: purpose. Chauvin meant to do the physical action. The charge doesn't require knowledge that such an action is illegal or inflicts bodily harm. However, if the intentional action inflicts bodily harm, then it's assault.

​

To me it reads like a) purpose to: do the thing or cause the result. b) belief: act will cause the result. The main "or" is between purpose and belief parts, having 1 out of 3 kinda slip into being the act only without belief or purpose doesn't make sense in the context of explaining what intent is.

There is no 'and'. Just "or". Any of those descriptives fulfill the element. If defendant purposefully does the action, or purposefully causes the harm, or belvies the harm will result, then the element is fulfilled.

I understand the confusion. This definition of intent differs from the usual meaning of 'intent'. In normal usage, we say 'intent' to refer to the outcome, e.g., 'I didn't intend to hurt him, we were just horsing around.' In this legal definition, 'intent' doesn't refer to the outcome but rather the action itself.