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

You really have that much trouble reading? "Law enforcement sources..." Fuck, you're such a stubborn little child. Grow up, bud.
TMZ can label anonymous sources whatever the hell they want. Lawyers literally have the word law in their name and are a part of the law/legal enforcement system, so whatever. But let's look at this logically. We know you were wrong when you said that if someone calls the cops reporting a domestic dispute, someone HAS to be arrested. It's just not true. If there are no signs of a physical incident, and both parties deny it, No one is getting arrested on the say-so of someone else. We know that there were no injuries. We're told neither party had injuries. This casts Chuck's statement into doubt and provides no probable cause to assume there had been a physical altercation. That probable cause must have come from a witness, (their child/children), or Chuck, or his wife during the interview. I don't believe it was their kid and I don't know if they could legally be questioned at that point anyway. It must have been the Lidell parents. Now, and bear with me here because this is important, If both Lidells had denied anything had happened, the cops would have been forced to leave, having no evidence of a domestic altercation. That means that one or both admitted to the cops that something physical between the two of them had gone down. Because "law enforcement sources" say that an aggressor could not be determined, It means that they were blaming each other. At that point the cops said we know something happened, we don't know who initiated it but one of you is going to take the fall. Chuck is probably telling the truth here when he says that he volunteered to be the one, for the sake of the kids--but he was still mad as hell at her, which is evidenced by his scathing statement on his release. So here's the thing Chuck is leaving out--he is making up or greatly exaggerating his injuries because they were not apparent to the investigating officers and that she blames him for the fight just as much as he blames her. As per usual, statements like his are not the whole truth and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
 
TMZ can label anonymous sources whatever the hell they want. Lawyers literally have the word law in their name and are a part of the law/legal enforcement system, so whatever. But let's look at this logically. We know you were wrong when you said that if someone calls the cops reporting a domestic dispute, someone HAS to be arrested. It's just not true. If there are no signs of a physical incident, and both parties deny it, No one is getting arrested on the say-so of someone else. We know that there were no injuries. We're told neither party had injuries. This casts Chuck's statement into doubt and provides no probable cause to assume there had been a physical altercation. That probable cause must have come from a witness, (their child/children), or Chuck, or his wife during the interview. I don't believe it was their kid and I don't know if they could legally be questioned at that point anyway. It must have been the Lidell parents. Now, and bear with me here because this is important, If both Lidells had denied anything had happened, the cops would have been forced to leave, having no evidence of a domestic altercation. That means that one or both admitted to the cops that something physical between the two of them had gone down. Because "law enforcement sources" say that an aggressor could not be determined, It means that they were blaming each other. At that point the cops said we know something happened, we don't know who initiated it but one of you is going to take the fall. Chuck is probably telling the truth here when he says that he volunteered to be the one, for the sake of the kids--but he was still mad as hell at her, which is evidenced by his scathing statement on his release. So here's the thing Chuck is leaving out--he is making up or greatly exaggerating his injuries because they were not apparent to the investigating officers and she blames him for the fight just as much as he blames her. As per usual, statements like his are not the whole truth and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

You keep changing your premise as all your shit gets shot down. That's pretty funny, bud. Just keep throwing shit at the wall until it sticks, right? Classic.
 
You keep changing your premise as all your shit gets shot down. That's pretty funny, bud. Just keep throwing shit at the wall until it sticks, right? Classic.
I believe I have explained the situation to my satisfaction, all the pieces fit, the dots are connected, it makes sense now. It just took a little logical thinking, using the information at hand--which I suppose some people forgo around here and instead hang their hat on "I'm a sherdog expert, I've done this for years, I know everything, you're stupid, blah, blah, blah.
 
"I'm a sherdog expert, I've done this for years, I know everything, you're stupid, blah, blah, blah.

This is literally what you've been doing for days. You can't admit that you're not very educated on the subject and have little experience, but hey, at least I got you to google some shit and alter your stance. Next step would be to admit and defer. One day, sahn. One day.
 
I believe him. I went through a similar situation with my girlfriend a few years ago after she assaulted me. She was so wracked with guilt afterwards that she paid over $6k to bail me out the next day. In California, OJ Simpson law says that someone has to go to jail when the police are called for domestic violence.
 
No, your friend was detained. Just google the difference, man. Why choose to be so outrageously stubborn? There is a distinct difference between being arrested and detained. The guy you're quoting is thinking that going to jail equates to conviction and sentencing, he's not saying the same thing you're saying. You're both confused and are mixing/matching terms.
Perhaps the cop was simply being cool with him that night, I was not there and got the details filled in. But he was told he was being placed under arrest. And then released later with no charges filed. Chuck if all they needed was a cooling off. Why did charges need to be filed? Couldn’t they have just cut him loose a few hours later after detaining him?
 
Perhaps the cop was simply being cool with him that night, I was not there and got the details filled in. But he was told he was being placed under arrest. And then released later with no charges filed. Chuck if all they needed was a cooling off. Why did charges need to be filed? Couldn’t they have just cut him loose a few hours or 24 hours later after detaining him?

You're not "arrested" unless you've been charged and booked. If you're taken into custody and released without being charged, you were only detained.

In Chuck's case, there was a mandatory arrest, which comes with a mandatory charge.
 
Love Chuck but his story makes no sense.
 
He was shitted on pretty heavily the first time he got in trouble tho. And people literally word shit to make it sound worse than it actually was. There is still plenty of people on here shouting about how he "ran over a pregnant lady" when that wording is completely misleading. He's had a hate brigade forever. You tell me why
Starting off preaching God, snitching on people that used THC, beating all the legends of the last era, being busted for drugs more than once, getting in multiple accidents, having a fake persona, all the drama with evans and DC, multiple run ins with the law, and now positive evidence that he beats the mother of his children in front of them. There are legitimate examples of double standard due to race, Jones isn’t one of them
 
It's mainly about power. As a hot woman, she is "better" than you. How dare you not do what she said or agree with her? Chuck is holding on to his looks more so than his girl and she has been with him for a while. She probably views herself as a celebrity as well and feels some insecurity about her fading power (looks).

I'm friends with a Playmate, but she can get really bitchy at times. I'm not dating her even though she is attractive because I don't want the bitchiness to get worse. If we're involved, she would feel more authority to rage.

Heck, I did some mild, cornball flirting with a girl on a film set after a group of us went to a pub at the end of the day. She was butt hurt and a little shocked that I didn't go up the stairs with her. She didn't get bitchy/crazy, but she was noticeably puzzled. She wasn't a stunner, but at least a little cute. What if she was a bit more attractive and paranoid about word getting out that she was turned down?





That's the problem. The people saying let's see the evidence are being treated like they're the blind nutters. The ones saying "I'm not saying believe all women, but you should believe all women..." are pushing an agenda because they don't want to acknowledge the possibility that Chuck is innocent. Heck, we even have people Sher-jerking it to the dangers of the "next time" Chuck does something being worse when we don't even know if he did anything this time.

Chuck is a pro fighter that was one of the most lethal strikers of his time. Him "attacking" her without doing any damage is laughable. Even with that common sense observation, you have people slobberingly pretending that he is factually guilty and already convicted. They're actually worried that nothing will come of this so they have to hate-rage now so they don't lose the opportunity if the accusation falls apart.



You won't find a real source. Not sure if he was referencing this, but I believe there was a study on college rape/assault. It eventually came out that the authors of the study counted instances when the person said she wasn't raped/assaulted and instances when no reasonable person would take it as such like it was rape/assault. It's meaningless really, because such statistics are only useful in the abstract when you have nothing else to go on. Chuck and his girl are individuals.
people are so extreme now days, court of public opinion is rabid and dangerous.

I don't know what happened with Chuck, wasn't there, but his statement that came later is exactly why I don't jump to conclusions. her version might be true, his might be, it is probably something in the middle, I certainly don't know.

sad thing is there are plenty out there that see wait and see, allowing facts and process their place = casting doubt or not supporting victims.
 
Starting off preaching God, snitching on people that used THC, beating all the legends of the last era, being busted for drugs more than once, getting in multiple accidents, having a fake persona, all the drama with evans and DC, multiple run ins with the law, and now positive evidence that he beats the mother of his children in front of them. There are legitimate examples of double standard due to race, Jones isn’t one of them
what does "positive evidence" mean?
 
you don't have "actual proof" of what you said though.....
So you haven’t seen both the cars wrecked? Or read/heard from the commission, ufc, and Jones himself about failed tests? You can also read the police reports. You can watch the body cam when he was in NM. He’s an amazing fighter, but is a POS.
 
So you haven’t seen both the cars wrecked? Or read/heard from the commission, ufc, and Jones himself about failed tests? You can also read the police reports. You can watch the body cam when he was in NM. He’s an amazing fighter, but is a POS.
i was talking about " positive evidence that he beats the mother of his children in front of them."
 
i was talking about " positive evidence that he beats the mother of his children in front of them."
Ok police say her bleeding, stating she was scared of him, witnessed erratic and violent behavior, and the daughter asked for the police to be called. Combine that with a history drugs and legal problems is called a pattern. So not similar at all
 
From what Big John was saying Chuck actually appears to be the victim of the violence. That just the way california law works basically any DV call someone basically has to be arrested to seperate the two individuals for a period of time(A cooldown period i'd imagine). Officers stated they would have to take her where chuck was showing the signs of violence on his body, but chuck volunteered for them to take him in. Doubt John would lie about that either where he used to be a California cop, and I believe he said one of his sons still is.
 
Ok police say her bleeding, stating she was scared of him, witnessed erratic and violent behavior, and the daughter asked for the police to be called. Combine that with a history drugs and legal problems is called a pattern. So not similar at all
so, circumstantial evidence.....agreed.
 
Back
Top