What is the defence counsel's failure to request CALCRIM No. 522?

Defendant's fallback position, of course, is that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to request CALCRIM No. 522. We cannot conclude based on the record before us that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688.) It is possible the attorney had tactical reasons for wanting to stake his bets on a voluntary manslaughter conviction by imperfect defense of others, arguing defendant was only trying to help protect his cousins when he entered into the fighting. That is essentially his same argument on appeal, but now he tries to call it heat of passion.