That would corroborate his lawyers saying that a conviction after a finding of a lack of malice is inconsistent.

Except the next paragraph says:

If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony;

But, if the shooting was in self-defense, was it unlawful? Maybe the guy was legally allowed to defend himself, but not legally allowed to shoot a gun inside a crowded food court. Like, the self-defense covers him for injuring another person, but it doesn’t cover the danger he posed to other people when he did it?