A man kills his wife after she admits her infidelity; another man kills a gay man after an alleged non-violent sexual advance; a third man shoots and kills an unarmed Japanese teenager outside his home because the teenager didn't stop walking towards him when the homeowner said "freeze." When brought before the criminal justice system, all three men argue that they should be found not guilty of murder; the first two use the defense of provocation, while the third argues he used his gun in self-defense. Drawing upon these and similar cases, Cynthia K. Lee shows how two well-established, traditional criminal law defenses - the doctrines of provocation and self-defense - enable certain defendants to more easily justify their acts of violence than others. At the same time, Lee demonstrates that the reasonableness requirement tends to exclude the perspectives of women, gays and lesbians, and persons of color. Lee suggests three tentative legal reforms to address problems of bias and undue leniency.