Policing high crime areas presents significant challenges. The affected communities demand protection yet resent heavy-handed tactics that sometimes focus on the innocent or result in a response out of proportion to a perceived offense.

While a judge, I attended meetings in the Mattapan/Dorchester area at which the absence of a police presence and the failure of the courts to punish offenders were the principal topics. Understandably, victimized residents were concerned for their safety. They were critical of the police and the courts for not doing enough to suppress crime in their community.

The views expressed were the same in white or minority communities, but they were more intense in the black community where the danger of being victimized was higher. Drugs and easy access to guns are a volatile mix. Black youths were often victims of drug-related shootings. The business was being regulated over the bodies of black youth. Frequently, innocent bystanders were caught in the crossfire.

Police officials responded by sending in more officers. Often, these officers were young, highly motivated, and aggressive. They were instructed, when responding to community concerns, to be alert and proactive. Here is the dilemma: How do you patrol aggressively without offending residents who are simply going about their business?

Where do you find officers with the maturity, discipline, and self restraint necessary to balance law enforcement with community relations? How do you teach officers not to overreact; how not to make a bad situation worse; how to exercise restraint even when provoked?

Where do you find officers who will assume the risk of working effectively in a high crime area yet have the good judgment to know when to back off; let the situation cool down; deal with a confrontation without being confrontational? While you can teach some of these skills, others require personality traits that are not easily learned.
Would black officers be more sensitive? Perhaps, but I have known black judges whose sentences were severe and who often lectured black defendants on what they were doing to themselves and their own community. They, too, were trying to balance the rights of defendants against public safety concerns.

I also had the opportunity to observe many outstanding officers, many of whom had the respect of troublemakers in a community. They were street savvy, calm, and courteous, when it would have been easy to react impulsively. I have heard cases when officers would have been justified in using lethal force, but didn’t.

In light of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, the nation is again focused on the problem. Nobody is suggesting that police presence be reduced in minority communities. They want better, more sensitive law enforcement that is more restrained and respectful of the rights of suspects.

The Garner case is a good example. The offense was very minor. He was angry, refusing to submit to arrest, but not assaultive. The officers should have given him time to calm down, perhaps explaining that he would likely be released within the hour. They could have not arrested him and instead sent him a summons to court. Under the circumstances, it made little sense to take him down, risking injury to him and the officers.

Police officers are confused. They are receiving a mixed message: “We want you to protect us but not so aggressively that we need to be protected from you.” With careful selection and proper training, many departments like Boston have achieved a sensible balance; others will conform but mistakes are inevitable. Unfortunately, people will be needlessly injured or killed. When society empowers people with a badge and a gun and asks them to protect us, no matter how well intentioned the empowered are, they remain human beings with all the strengths and weaknesses that status implies.

James W. Dolan is a retired Dorchester District Court judge who now practices law.