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

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.

Got a link to Big John talking about this?
 
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.

This is correct in the state of California.
 
so, circumstantial evidence.....agreed.
It is obviously more than a typical”he said she said”
It’s either
a-the entire world is out to get him, and that he has the worst luck ever
Or
B-he is a grown adult, who continuously messes up badly, so people don’t give him the benefit of the doubt
 
A dented car, video recording, and literal blood is not circumstantial
"he beats the mother of his children in front of them."

for some reason, you seem unwilling to acknowledge there is only circumstantial evidence to this. you want to make it about other things.....

and i get him not getting the benefit of the doubt and people believing he's a scumbag and did bad things.
 
Woah woah relax, we are just having a conversation lol.
Of course rape is rape, but you also have to contextualize it, because anomalies and extremes can often skew the perspective. That's the difference between data and information.

Let me ask you, if you put 1000 random men and women in prison for let's say 5 years, do you think more men would get raped than women?

Another example, you flip a coin once and get heads. Based on that one coin flip you can't say that it will always be heads, unless the coin was tainted. I mean you could, but you would just sound dumb.

And that's exactly what's happening here. I know you are not that stupid, so you don't have to pretend to be just to get your point across.
More fairy tales with zero factual basis for anything you’re blabbering in circles about
 


Thanks, braddah. Perfect timestamps too!

@Dbreiden83080
@Captain Herb
@Local Plata

Maybe you three will concede and/or apologize after you hear Big John (former LA cop) tell you exactly what I've been telling you for the last few days? He even gives an example of a call he was on himself. I doubt any of you will, but it would show maturity and humbleness on your part. Cheers, friends.
 
More fairy tales with zero factual basis for anything you’re blabbering in circles about
You didn’t answer my question. What are the stats for the non-incarcerated population?

If I’m not incarcerated, why do I care about the incarcerated statistics? Why do you think they are relevant?
 
More fairy tales with zero factual basis for anything you’re blabbering in circles about
I know I know, it's my fault. I should dumb down my points to meet your intellect. Unfortunately I can't even pretend to be that stupid. It's ok we'll come back to this in a few years once (if) you've matured mentally.
 
You didn’t answer my question. What are the stats for the non-incarcerated population?

If I’m not incarcerated, why do I care about the incarcerated statistics? Why do you think they are relevant?
Dude you are talking to a wall.....actually you'd probably have better luck with that.
 
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 don't try to win arguments with people like you on an mma forum lol, which seems to be why you're here. I give my opinions, take them or leave them. In this case I am interested in the truth of what really happened. After reviewing all facts available this is what I believe happened:

The Liddell's go to a party. They are probably loaded. They get home and an argument breaks out. It gets physical at some point but doesn't seem severe and there are no injuries. Someone calls the cops and when they get there, chuck and his wife start blaming each other. The cops find no injuries and can't determine who physically started the domestic altercation, although they believe one did occur. According to law or protocol, they must arrest one or both. The kid/kids are awake watching the situation and Chuck wants to save them the trauma of seeing their mother led away in cuffs so he says he would like to be the one arrested if it meant that she wouldn't be. But he didn't do this for her, he did it for his child/children and he is still extremely pissed at his wife. As soon as he gets out the next day, he blames her for everything, says she has ongoing mental problems and that the truth would come out.

And that's where we stand as of now
 
I don't try to win arguments with people like you on an mma forum lol, which seems to be why you're here. I give my opinions, take them or leave them. In this case I am interested in the truth of what really happened. After reviewing all facts available this is what I believe happened:

The Liddell's go to a party. They are probably loaded. They get home and an argument breaks out. It gets physical at some point but doesn't seem severe and there are no injuries. Someone calls the cops and when they get there, chuck and his wife start blaming each other. The cops find no injuries and can't determine who physically started the domestic altercation, although they believe one did occur. According to law or protocol, they must arrest one or both. The kid/kids are awake watching the situation and Chuck wants to save them the trauma of seeing their mother led away in cuffs so he says he would like to be the one arrested if it meant that she wouldn't be. But he didn't do this for her, he did it for his child/children and he is still extremely pissed at his wife. As soon as he gets out the next day, he blames her for everything, says she has ongoing mental problems and that the truth would come out.

And that's where we stand as of now

You're a child. Did you listen to what John said? He spoke to officers involved and they said Chuck's statement is essentially exactly what happened. He had marks on him, she didn't, and he asked to go to jail in her place. For fuck's sake. Man up, kid.
 
I don't try to win arguments with people like you on an mma forum lol, which seems to be why you're here. I give my opinions, take them or leave them. In this case I am interested in the truth of what really happened. After reviewing all facts available this is what I believe happened:

The Liddell's go to a party. They are probably loaded. They get home and an argument breaks out. It gets physical at some point but doesn't seem severe and there are no injuries. Someone calls the cops and when they get there, chuck and his wife start blaming each other. The cops find no injuries and can't determine who physically started the domestic altercation, although they believe one did occur. According to law or protocol, they must arrest one or both. The kid/kids are awake watching the situation and Chuck wants to save them the trauma of seeing their mother led away in cuffs so he says he would like to be the one arrested if it meant that she wouldn't be. But he didn't do this for her, he did it for his child/children and he is still extremely pissed at his wife. As soon as he gets out the next day, he blames her for everything, says she has ongoing mental problems and that the truth would come out.

And that's where we stand as of now

You're a child. Did you listen to what John said? He spoke to officers involved and they said Chuck's statement is essentially exactly what happened. He had marks on him, she didn't, and he asked to go to jail in her place. For fuck's sake. Man up, kid.

In a way, you're both right.

Heisenberg says relax.
 
You're a child. Did you listen to what John said? He spoke to officers involved and they said Chuck's statement is essentially exactly what happened. He had marks on him, she didn't, and he asked to go to jail in her place. For fuck's sake. Man up, kid.
Dude, you're completely insufferable. Just like kflo. Good day
 
Catch and release doesn't apply to "mandatory arrest". It literally means they can't catch and release, they are mandated to arrest someone. They did issue Heidi a citation in addition to arresting Chuck, so she was also charged with something, but it hasn't been stated what that charge is.

If you get arrested, there is a charge for the arrest. The DA reviews the case before you're convicted of the charges. Charges can be dropped. I think you're confusing what I said with being convicted or sentenced if you're found guilty of the charges, but if you're arrested, you go jail (that day/night) and have to be charged with something for an official arrest to occur.

...bro you're wrong. I've been arrested and charged before. The police did not charge me. They arrested me because it appeared to them that it was highly likely I had committed a crime. I was released in a few hours and charged with a hit and run (street sign on a highway not a person) two weeks later once the DA reviewed the arrest.

It's a terminology thing but you're not "charged" by LEO. Only the prosecutor can file charges.

Carry on though
 
...bro you're wrong. I've been arrested and charged before. The police did not charge me. They arrested me because it appeared to them that it was highly likely I had committed a crime. I was released in a few hours and charged with a hit and run (street sign on a highway not a person) two weeks later once the DA reviewed the arrest.

It's a terminology thing but you're not "charged" by LEO. Only the prosecutor can file charges.

Carry on though

What state do you live in? Traffic and criminal cases are very different, by the way, and how things are handled can vary from state to state. Were you booked? Was there a bond? Was it a felony hit and run, or misdemeanor?
 
Thanks, braddah. Perfect timestamps too!

@Dbreiden83080
@Captain Herb
@Local Plata

Maybe you three will concede and/or apologize after you hear Big John (former LA cop) tell you exactly what I've been telling you for the last few days? He even gives an example of a call he was on himself. I doubt any of you will, but it would show maturity and humbleness on your part. Cheers, friends.
They glossed over the entire probable cause part. Josh is incorrect saying any time they are called someone has to go to jail. Nothing John said contradicted anything I said either, you are reading into his omission of facts as proof of something. He didn't mention what chuck or the guy in his example said at the point before getting arrested eg "I physically assaulted her" leading to the cops to arrest them.
 
They glossed over the entire probable cause part. Josh is incorrect saying any time they are called someone has to go to jail. Nothing John said contradicted anything I said either, you are reading into his omission of facts as proof of something. He didn't mention what chuck or the guy in his example said at the point before getting arrested eg "I physically assaulted her" leading to the cops to arrest them.

Surprise surprise! Another stubborn child refusing to admit they were wrong. Did you also not listen or watch? Goddamn.
 
Back
Top