News Chuck Liddell Arrested for Domestic Violence (UPDATE: With Official Statement)

No, you haven't. You cannot grasp reality here, and want to pretend your thoughts and opinions is real life. It's not. You've been wrong in most of what you've said.
And you think people can volunteer to go to jail for people, or that police are obligated to take someone to jail simply for being called somewhere, you clearly have no idea what probable cause even is like the cops arent the ones to make that assessment in the first place. Just like 'Welp, we got called out here our hands are tied, which one of you wants to be arrested for a crime?'. You can't even think rationally about how fucking stupid what you're saying is or how ridiculous the law would be if it worked the way you pretend it does. The courts would be backed up for years with false arrests, followed by filing a false report, followed by lawsuits by all parties ...
 
I'm sure none of it was planned, genius. It's very common for women to go off on their dude and then call the cops to get them in trouble. I'm not sure if she, one of the kids, Chuck, or a neighbor called, so can't really say there, but someone called, right? She didn't have marks on her or require medical, so clearly Chuck didn't hit her.

Officers arrive, and somebody has to go. Chuck doesn't want his wife arrested in front of her kids, so he said whatever needed to be said to prevent that from happening. In turn, he has to get booked and charged. It's very common. The fact that you think it's so far-fetched and/or impossible just shows that you have no experience in this whatsoever. Like...truly. You're literally clueless, man.



I mean...you know your grammar is bad, and you know we rarely agree. Sometimes, sure. We definitely don't use the same phrases. SMH and simp are two perfect examples of that. Hugs n kisses though, Kenny.
So what you're telling me as a certified Sherexpert is that in California (where I'm from BTW), if a neighbor calls the cops and says the people next door are having a fight, one of them is going to be arrested no matter what. Even if they deny it or have no evidence of a physical fight? Sure bud.
 
Sometimes just grabbing of the arm is all. We don't know. Woman take advantage like crazy for many reasons.
Yeah, and plenty of times dudes beat the crap out of/rough up their wives or girlfriends.
 
I’m using it in the boomer sense in that you’re a simpleton.

<YeahOKJen>

Weird you can’t keep my name from coming out of your mouth……

I haven't tagged you once, you just found your way here, as always.
 
I haven't tagged you once, you just found your way here, as always.
I know. You just call my name without tagging me.

I found my way to a giant thread that i was tagged in. Genius.
 
And you think people can volunteer to go to jail for people, or that police are obligated to take someone to jail simply for being called somewhere, you clearly have no idea what probable cause even is like the cops arent the ones to make that assessment in the first place. Just like 'Welp, we got called out here our hands are tied, which one of you wants to be arrested for a crime?'. You can't even think rationally about how fucking stupid what you're saying is or how ridiculous the law would be if it worked the way you pretend it does. The courts would be backed up for years with false arrests, followed by filing a false report, followed by lawsuits by all parties ...

They are obligated to arrest one of the parties if there is an admission to arguing and/or getting physical. Probable cause for a DV charge can be as simple as yelling, swearing, slamming a door, standing in front of someone, or stopping them from hitting you. Literally. Almost 70% of DV charges get dropped in the US. Look it up. I worked in this field for years, buddeh. I know how it works. I've seen many different scenarios. It is fucking ridiculous. Very fucking ridiculous. It's a fucking joke, but that's how it works.

So what you're telling me as a certified Sherexpert is that in California (where I'm from BTW), if a neighbor calls the cops and says the people next door are having a fight, one of them is going to be arrested no matter what. Even if they deny it or have no evidence of a physical fight? Sure bud.

There was an admission of physical contact, and there was physical evidence of it. They were obligated to make an arrest. If they deemed her as the aggressor and were going to arrest her, Chuck had to say something that constitutes probable cause for them to arrest him instead. It's literally that simple. I don't have personal experience in CA, but I have over 7 years experience in the field. Do you? I looked up the California laws, and they're almost identical to the state I worked in, as they are in almost every state. Cali typically has harsher laws and typically requires less probable cause for an arrest to occur. They have broader classifications for the sole purpose of being able to arrest people with less reason.

If Chuck, his wife, and whoever called said that there was no physical contact and they weren't fighting, they would have no probable cause and wouldn't be obligated to make an arrest without a witness testimony. That obviously wasn't the case. "Bruises and lacerations" is probable cause. If Chuck said he was standing in her way or restraining her, and she said she was scared of him, that is probable cause to arrest and charge Chuck. For fuck's sake you kids are either just straight retarded or incredibly stubborn. How many times does a simple concept need to be explained to you in order for you to comprehend it. You don't have any experience or knowledge in this field. I do. What would be the purpose of me lying to you about it? You can actually just fucking google how it works and see for yourself.
 
I know. You just call my name without tagging me.

I found my way to a giant thread that i was tagged in. Genius.
Why do both you and fioretti always use the word 'genius' in like almost every post
 
They are obligated to arrest one of the parties if there is an admission to arguing and/or getting physical. Probable cause for a DV charge can be as simple as yelling, swearing, slamming a door, standing in front of someone, or stopping them from hitting you. Literally. Almost 70% of DV charges get dropped in the US. Look it up. I worked in this field for years, buddeh. I know how it works. I've seen many different scenarios. It is fucking ridiculous. Very fucking ridiculous. It's a fucking joke, but that's how it works.



There was an admission of physical contact, and there was physical evidence of it. They were obligated to make an arrest. If they deemed her as the aggressor and were going to arrest her, Chuck had to say something that constitutes probable cause for them to arrest him instead. It's literally that simple. I don't have personal experience in CA, but I have over 7 years experience in the field. Do you? I looked up the California laws, and they're almost identical to the state I worked in, as they are in almost every state. Cali typically has harsher laws and typically requires less probable cause for an arrest to occur. They have broader classifications for the sole purpose of being able to arrest people with less reason.

If Chuck, his wife, and whoever called said that there was no physical contact and they weren't fighting, they would have no probable cause and wouldn't be obligated to make an arrest without a witness testimony. That obviously wasn't the case. "Bruises and lacerations" is probable cause. If Chuck said he was standing in her way or restraining her, and she said she was scared of him, that is probable cause to arrest and charge Chuck. For fuck's sake you kids are either just straight retarded or incredibly stubborn. How many times does a simple concept need to be explained to you in order for you to comprehend it. You don't have any experience or knowledge in this field. I do. What would be the purpose of me lying to you about it? You can actually just fucking google how it works and see for yourself.
Chuck said he was bruised and scratched. Was it on the police report?
 
Why do both you and fioretti always use the word 'genius' in like almost every post

"Almost every post", eh? Count my posts, and count the times I said "genius". I'll wait.

Chuck said he was bruised and scratched. Was it on the police report?

I haven't read it, but all the reports I've read say that his wife didn't require medical, nor did they mention any injuries on her. Chuck clearly wrote that under his lawyer's instructions, or it was written by his lawyer. There's no way in hell he'd allow that to be written publicly if it wasn't 100% factually accurate and documented. Go and buy the report and prove me wrong, friend. Should cost you less than $2. In fact, if you buy it and I'm wrong, I'll pay you 10x what they charged you for the report. How about that? Go!
 
I'm sure none of it was planned, genius. It's very common for women to go off on their dude and then call the cops to get them in trouble. I'm not sure if she, one of the kids, Chuck, or a neighbor called, so can't really say there, but someone called, right? She didn't have marks on her or require medical, so clearly Chuck didn't hit her.

Officers arrive, and somebody has to go. Chuck doesn't want his wife arrested in front of her kids, so he said whatever needed to be said to prevent that from happening. In turn, he has to get booked and charged. It's very common. The fact that you think it's so far-fetched and/or impossible just shows that you have no experience in this whatsoever. Like...truly. You're literally clueless, man.



I mean...you know your grammar is bad, and you know we rarely agree. Sometimes, sure. We definitely don't use the same phrases. SMH and simp are two perfect examples of that. Hugs n kisses though, Kenny.

Chuck didn't hit her, she's fine. I know that much.
 
"Almost every post", eh? Count my posts, and count the times I said "genius". I'll wait.



I haven't read it, but all the reports I've read say that his wife didn't require medical, nor did they mention any injuries on her. Chuck clearly wrote that under his lawyer's instructions, or it was written by his lawyer. There's no way in hell he'd allow that to be written publicly if it wasn't 100% factually accurate and documented. Go and buy the report and prove me wrong, friend. Should cost you less than $2. In fact, if you buy it and I'm wrong, I'll pay you 10x what they charged you for the report. How about that? Go!
Oh really? I was under the impression you had read the report. That's what you made it sound like. Why don't you obtain the report and if it says the husband was arrested, suffering from bruises and scratches, while his wife was untouched, I'll send you $20 and another $5 on top of that. Here's what happened: They arrested Chuck because they genuinely thought he was the guilty party, not because they said, tell us you did it and we'll take you in, instead of her--even though you have the marks on you and she doesn't. (which is a really poor investigation). The rest is PR bullshit because it makes absolutely no sense. Can I prove it? No, but you can't prove your case either, you're just completely speculating, it turns out. I still haven't found out why he went to such great lengths to protect his wife and then unloaded on her on social media as soon as he got out, saying it was all her fault and she had a history of mental problems. Doesn't add up, friend.
 
Oh really? I was under the impression you had read the report. That's what you made it sound like. Why don't you obtain the report and if it says the husband was arrested, suffering from bruises and scratches, while his wife was untouched, I'll send you $20 and another $5 on top of that. Here's what happened: They arrested Chuck because they genuinely thought he was the guilty party, not because they said, tell us you did it and we'll take you in, instead of her--even though you have the marks on you and she doesn't. (which is a really poor investigation). The rest is PR bullshit because it makes absolutely no sense. Can I prove it? No, but you can't prove your case either, you're just completely speculating, it turns out. I still haven't found out why he went to such great lengths to protect his wife and then unloaded on her on social media as soon as he got out, saying it was all her fault and she had a history of mental problems. Doesn't add up, friend.

How much experience do you have in this field? You clearly don't know shit, buddeh. You don't understand how little needs to be said for them to determine an "aggressor", or how common it is for them to arrest the male even if he's the only one with marks on him.

I want you to buy the report and prove yourself wrong. Your hesitancy to do so suggests that you know you're likely wrong, and your general dishonesty and stubbornness suggest you wouldn't pay up afterwards. Quit trying to weasle out of it. Man up, son.
 
How much experience do you have in this field? You clearly don't know shit, buddeh. You don't understand how little needs to be said for them to determine an "aggressor", or how common it is for them to arrest the male even if he's the only one with marks on him.

I want you to buy the report and prove yourself wrong. Your hesitancy to do so suggests that you know you're likely wrong, and your general dishonesty and stubbornness suggest you wouldn't pay up afterwards. Quit trying to weasle out of it. Man up, son.
No doubt it will be published shortly and at that point, I will be expecting a small sum of money and a heartfelt apology
 
I like how the Sheerdog default stance on domestic abuse is that the woman must be lying wait for the trial.
With widespread false accusations and taking advantage of laws to destroy men’s life, can you blame them? I bet lots have PTSD from personal experience.
 
No doubt it will be published shortly and at that point, I will be expecting a small sum of money and a heartfelt apology

Your delusional fantasies never end, do they? I like how you just ignore everything and keep pursuing your dreams. Stay gold, Pony Boy.
 
And you think people can volunteer to go to jail for people, or that police are obligated to take someone to jail simply for being called somewhere, you clearly have no idea what probable cause even is like the cops arent the ones to make that assessment in the first place. Just like 'Welp, we got called out here our hands are tied, which one of you wants to be arrested for a crime?'. You can't even think rationally about how fucking stupid what you're saying is or how ridiculous the law would be if it worked the way you pretend it does. The courts would be backed up for years with false arrests, followed by filing a false report, followed by lawsuits by all parties ...
Probable cause takes a walk as soon as someone whispers "domestic".
 
@Captain Herb

Oh, buddy...


"TMZ Sports has learned Chuck's wife, Heidi, is also in some hot water following the alleged incident early Monday morning.

Law enforcement sources tell us Heidi was cited on the scene because police could not determine the aggressor.

As Chuck said in the statement he released yesterday, the UFC legend asked cops if Heidi could remain at their house with a minor child who was on the premises, while he was taken to jail.

Police obliged ... and Chuck was locked up for several hours in an L.A. jail.

As for what happened before and during the incident, we're told Chuck and Heidi were at a party. They returned home and got into an argument that allegedly turned physical.

We're told neither party had injuries.

4:16 PM PT -- Liddell is opening up on his arrest ... saying he was the victim and claiming his wife had assaulted him, causing bruises and lacerations.

Although Liddell says he never got physical with his wife, he claims he was told she would be arrested, so he volunteered to go to jail in her place."



Why would his wife also receive a citation if she was the victim? Why are they saying the police could not determine the aggressor? Isn't it weird that they're saying Chuck asked if the wife could stay home with their child while he went to jail? Isn't that what I said? Do you now understand that you were wrong? Do you now understand that you don't actually know how these things work? Will you apologize? I saw you liked that post already, so I assume you read it, and that may explain your very short response immediately after, but you still haven't conceded. Man up, boy.
 
Back
Top