(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the court that the activities of the defendants amounted to a violation of Smith’s civil rights, either by direct application of force or through joint venture liability, as found by the trial judge. I write separately for two reasons. The first is to point out that our decision in this case makes clear that, in appropriate cases, a defendant’s physical acts or complicity in the acts of another may subject the defendant to liability under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G. L. c. 12, § 11H (1992 ed.) (Civil Rights Act). My second reason for writing is that, although I agree that the defendants were subject to liability under the Civil Rights Act, I do not agree that the scope of the injunction issued by the trial judge was proper.
In past decisions, this court has suggested that direct violations of an individual’s civil rights would not subject a de*569fendant to liability under the Civil Rights Act. See Longval v. Commissioner of Correction, 404 Mass. 325, 333 (1989) (unlawful use of force to compel prisoner to do something would not violate the Civil Rights Act because direct violation did not involve threat, intimidation or coercion); Pheasant Ridge Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. Burlington, 399 Mass. 771, 781 (1987) (legislation which directly eliminates individual’s rights, but does not seek to force individual to do or not do something, does not violate the Civil Rights Act). See also Bally v. Northeastern Univ., 403 Mass. 713, 719 (1989), and cases cited (relief typically granted under the Civil Rights Act where there was physical confrontation accompanied by threat of harm). Indeed, not all direct violations of a person’s rights should subject the actor to liability under the Civil Rights Act. Under the circumstances of this case, however, where the defendants directly violated Smith’s rights, or stood by and allowed such a violation to occur despite a duty to intervene, and, in addition, were acting out of anger and personal animosity without regard to the existence of Smith’s rights, injunctive relief under the Civil Rights Act was warranted. See Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 399 Mass. 93, 104 (1987) (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (coercion involves restraint or domination of another’s will and appears to refer to restraint accomplished by physical force).
While I agree that the defendants violated the Civil Rights Act and that an injunction should have been issued, I do not believe that the injunction issued by the trial judge is consonant with our case law. In discussing the standard for an injunction issued pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, we noted in Commonwealth v. Guilfoyle, 402 Mass. 130 (1988), that “the issuance and scope of equitable relief [granted under the Civil Rights Act] rests within the sound discretion of the judge,” and that an injunction under G. L. c. 12, § 11H, being one that promotes the public interest, “is not to be judged by standards applicable to private litigation.” Guil-foyle, supra at 135, citing Commonwealth v. Mass. CRINC, 392 Mass. 79, 88-89 (1984). Thus, for example, a showing of *570irreparable harm by the party seeking the injunction would not be required. See Mass. CRINC, supra at 88-89.
Guilfoyle and Mass. CRINC do not suggest, however, that other traditional equitable principles would, not be applicable in fashioning relief under the Civil Rights Act. Accordingly, the trial judge should have followed cases such as Lydia E. Pinkham Medicine Co. v. Gove, 303 Mass. 1 (1939), where this court said:
“Relief by injunction against the defendants . . . should be broad enough to prevent recurrence in the future of any of the wrongs found to have been already committed by them and to forestall any other or further wrongs which the proof shows to have been threatened or which the previous conduct of these defendants indicates as likely to be committed. It should not, however, extend beyond the scope of the bill, reasonably construed, and should not prohibit acts which there is no reasonable ground to fear will be done.”
303 Mass, at 14. See District Att’y for the Plymouth Dist. v. Selectmen of Middleborough, 395 Mass. 629, 634 (1985) (modifying injunction that was too broadly worded); Brookline v. Goldstein, 388 Mass. 443, 451 (1983) (vacating injunction and remanding because injunction should be no broader than required to protect plaintiff from harassment by defendant); Wilson v. Jennings, 344 Mass. 608, 620 (1962) (modifying decree to conform to bill filed by plaintiff); R.M. Sedrose, Inc. v. Mazmanian, 326 Mass. 578, 580-581 (1950) (where plaintiff sought to enjoin the selling of specified items, it was error to enjoin the selling of other items). Furthermore, where public officials are the subject of an injunction, the rule that the injunction should be no more intrusive than necessary to achieve the legally justified result has particular relevance. Perez v. Boston Hous. Auth., 379 Mass. 703, 730 (1980).
The judge below concluded that “although the defendants all shared the culpability, they did not do so equally. Al*571though the differentiation may be pertinent in later phases of the case, it is immaterial to the present disposition. Whatever a defendant’s degree of guilt here, all are subject to restraint against recurrence.” Because the trial judge was concerned with “recurrence” when he issued his injunction, he exceeded his discretion by not tailoring the injunction to enjoin the defendants from doing what the judge found they actually did. Thus, Waggett, Kelly, Hughes, O’Connor, and Bukoff, the only defendants who, the trial judge specifically found, used physical force, should be enjoined to the extent of the trial judge’s original injunction. The remaining defendants, however, should be enjoined only from doing what the trial judge found they actually did: failing to report to the proper authorities her or his knowledge of any visible injury occurring in the course of an arrest, and failing to report to the proper authorities her or his knowledge of the use by any Boston police officer of excessive force while in the performance of such officer’s duties.1
I agree with the court that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in not limiting the injunction to acts involving only Smith.