Talk:Use-of-force law in Missouri

Title of this article
I do not understand why the original name of the article (Use of force law in Missouri) wasn't changed to Use-of-force law in Missouri since:

1. For grammatical correctness, it is the compound adjective "Use-of-force" that modifies the noun "law".

2. The article pertains to use-of-force law in Missouri in general, and is not limited to only legal doctrine/common law.

Can anyone shed some light on this issue? Daniel.inform (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

About this article
To my fellow wikipedians, I'm not the best person to write this article. I'm just planting a seed in hopes that someone more qualified will notice and contribute.

As stated in my original edit note (see my 'User contributions'), it is evident that state-by-state articles on this topic are encyclopedic, notable, etc., just as state-by-state articles on same-sex marriage are, because it is the state-by-state laws that primarily govern this area.

I'm only creating an article for Missouri now, as there may be sufficient current interest to properly develop the article. I ask that you make a sincere effort to contribute something constructive, rather than taking the easy way out (nominating for deletion). Djbaniel (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Title (and content) of article: "Law" vs. "Doctrine"
I'd like to propose that the title (and content) of the article be edited to reflect that the focus is upon Missouri law (in general) relating to use of force. This includes statutes, precedents, decrees, etc. Not merely legal doctrine alone. Djbaniel (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Neologism and notability
The title "Use of force law in Missouri" lends itself to the conception/misconception that 'force law' or even 'use of force law' is a current concept. It is not. Use of force is a concept of "minimum amount of constraint needed to bring a person under control". It is not a law and the regulation within this article, as currently written, is not a law. Unless this can be proven otherwise, this article should be renamed or deleted. Furthermore, the information in this article is copied from another source without explanation or context, which may be a copyright infringement (although its inclusion in news reports looks legitimate) but it is definitely original research. This article needs a narrative that provides context and sourcing and establishes that the concept it describes is properly identified. EBY (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your contributions to this new article. Quoting you, "The title "Use of force law in Missouri" lends itself to the conception/misconception that 'force law' or even 'use of force law' is a current concept. It is not." Can you elaborate on this claim that 'use of force law' is not a current concept? References? Perhaps your expertise in this area is beyond mine, I am not a lawyer. Any suggestions as to how to improve? Djbaniel (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Further to this, it may add clarity to change the title of the article to "Use-of-force law in Missouri." See, for example, Compound_modifier. Djbaniel (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon further careful consideration re original research, can you please provide additional justification? The quoted text is directly from Missouri revised statutes (http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56300000462.html?&me=563-046), which is certainly in the public domain. The news articles cited are just a very tiny sample. See, for example: https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dbzQVeSQhbDUy2Mf9C0zBJawh8b2M&q=use+of+force+missouri&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uz50VNW0JI-JiwLzxoHQCQ&ved=0CCsQqgIwAA . Again, I'm not the best person to write this article. I just wanted to plant a seed in hopes that someone more qualified may notice and contribute.  Djbaniel (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , I rewrote the article and renamed it to avoid confusion. I also went to the "Shooting of..." article and corrected the link. I apologize for appearing brusque and hope this amends. Cheers, EBY (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledgement and reply to EBY
[Subheading added for ease of reference on AFD page.]

I just now received your last message, thank you EBY. I sincerely appreciate all that you have contributed to this article. There is only one area where I think that you and I may still slightly disagree, and it relates to discussion of 'law' vs. 'doctrine.' In my view, the most significant reason that the topic does deserve it's own article (for each state) is that the laws governing use of force are different in each state. To me, it is the state laws that govern use of force that are notable here. It is the law in each state that determines whether an officer is justified in killing. Further, I assert that the state laws governing use of force are notable for each state. To this end, I would like to humbly ask that my fellow editors make a sincere effort in considering that the title of the article should be changed again, and the full text of the pertinent Missouri law(s) should be included in the article. (Of course pertinent federal law & Supreme Court case law should also be discussed.) Djbaniel (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)