My brother-in-law did something like that to my sister. I went over to talk to him and told him, "Look. You're a man; I'm a man, and we're going to talk, me and you." I said, "You [are with] my sister. Love her. Respect her ... because if I ever see that you hit her again, you're not going to have to deal with my sister; you'll have to deal with me. (Klevens et al., 2007, p. 150) In contrast to a time when women typically "dealt with" domestic violence on their own, the last 50 years have seen the emergence of a national and international infrastructure of support for victims. In the United States, for instance, shelter programs, community-based advocacy and professional collaboration have all been developed and continue to expand (Hart, 1995; Pence & Shepard, 1999; Sullivan, 2000; Sullivan & Gillum, 2000). Similar progress has occurred with criminal justice accountability for perpetrators, including mandatory arrest policies, evidence-based prosecution, increased access to protective orders, mandated sentencing and more batterers' intervention programs (E. S. Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003). In spite of such improvements, a general awareness exists that formal institutional responses, however well-coordinated, will likely remain insufficient to address the problem of domestic violence (1) in a comprehensive way. Logistically, for instance, shelters and services continue to work with limited funding and are most likely to serve low-income women. And just as the ranks of formal counselors have long been forecast to be exceeded by the amount of individuals needing help (Albee, 1959), the sheer numbers of law enforcement personnel will arguably remain a serious constraint in their collective ability to hold batterers accountable across communities. More nuanced institutional challenges have also been noted, ranging from subtle limitations of police in relating to the complexities of domestic violence (E. S. Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003) and a double bind faced by women of color/immigrant status in relation to the formal systems response (Richie & Kanuha, 2000), to a shift in shelter services away from survivor-centered, empowerment-orientated emphases toward individual-level conceptualizations (Goodman, & Epstein, 2007; Lehrner & Allen, 2008; Sullivan, 2005). While continuing reform to human service and criminal justice systems may lead to an ever more effective professional response, constraints such as these have lead some to propose a larger role for more informal, natural support systems in what Shepard and Pence (1999) call the "coordinated community response to domestic violence" (p. 20; see also, Gracia & Herrero, 2006; Khawaja, Linos & El-Roueiheb, 2008; Klevens et al., 2007). From extended family, friends and neighbors, to co-workers, clergy and hairdressers, "average" citizens are being increasingly highlighted in their potential contribution to addressing domestic violence. This mixed empirical and theoretical article aims to sharpen our understanding of citizen views on their own role in the coordinated community response to violence. Typically, discussions of informal, citizen participation refer to basic efforts to educate, raise awareness and organize community members in supporting victims of domestic violence. Another less common, but especially promising form of citizen engagement is known as community accountability, defined as follows: The ability of communities to intervene directly when violence occurs, so acts of violence are stopped not only by the police, but by community members and institutions. It relies upon the responsibility and capacity of the community to confront abusers and provide a process for abuser accountability which can include reparations to their victims, monitoring future abuse, and long-term measures that prevent violence. (Kim, 2005, p. 34) As illustrated in the opening epigraph, community accountability entails a willingness of friends or family to go beyond mere awareness of abuse, to doing something about it personally. …