To deal with the problem of racial stereotypes that affect juror determinations of reasonableness in self-defense cases, at least three options are available. First, current law could be maintained despite its flaws. Second, the law could be reformed to eliminate the reasonableness requirement and embrace a completely subjective standard for determining self-defense claims. Third, the law could be reformed to maintain the reasonableness requirement, but attempt to reform self-defense doctrine to minimize the influence of racial stereotypes. The first two of these possibilities contain serious drawbacks. Working within the current framework of self-defense law, this paper proposes two preliminary suggestions for reform. The first involves clarification of the act-belief distinction through a revised jury instruction on self-defense that makes explicit the requirement that both the defendant's beliefs and act must be reasonable, coupled with a new two-tiered framework for assessing criminal liability in recognition of the act-belief distinction. The second proposal involves a supplemental limiting jury instruction, to be given at either party's request or by the judge in any case in which self-defense is an issue, that reminds jurors not to rely on racial stereotypes in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant's acts or beliefs. For part 1 of this paper, see NCJ-179694.