There is nothing to suggest that he had to do so, or reasonably believed that he had to do so, in order to insure his own safety. In the best of circumstances, merely handling a loaded gun in close proximity to others while under the influence of alcohol is a reckless act. When the loaded gun is being handled in the midst of a bar fight with an opponent whose blood-alcohol content is several times higher than the legal limit, as was the case here, the recklessness is manifest. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. To the extent that there is inconsistency between defendant's contention that the jury should have been instructed on involuntary manslaughter and his alternate claim of self-defense, the inconsistency is not fatal to this appeal.
Illinois law allows a criminal defendant to raise inconsistent defenses.
Indeed, we have specifically held that where there is evidentiary support for an involuntary manslaughter instruction, such an instruction is not prohibited by a claim of self-defense. For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied defendant's request to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The judgment of the appellate court affirming the circuit court's judgment should therefore be reversed, and the cause should be remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. Accordingly, I dissent.