Part I discusses traditional self-defense doctrine, including the debate over whether an objective or subjective standard of reasonableness should be used. Part II examines ways in which socially constructed stereotypes about blacks, Asian-Americans, and Latinos might influence jurors in self-defense and other cases. Part III explores ways of reducing the influence of racial stereotyping in jurors' consideration of "reasonableness" in self-defense cases. Two tentative proposals are examined. The first involves clarification of the act-belief distinction. This reform suggests that in States in which the standard jury instruction on self-defense requires the jury to find only that the defendant's beliefs were honest and reasonable, jury instructions should be clarified to make explicit that both the defendant's beliefs and actions must be reasonable in order to acquit a defendant on self-defense grounds. The second proposal involves a supplemental limiting jury instruction on racial stereotyping. Under this proposal, in any self-defense case in which either the parties or the judge feels it appropriate, the trial judge should give the jury a supplemental limiting instruction that advises the jury that racial stereotypes should not be relied upon to support a finding that the defendant's use of deadly force was reasonable. 468 footnotes