# Dana says Tito can be booted if charges are legit



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

I dont really know how to take this, What Rampage did was bad but a domestic case tops that. I can see it happening though, not many people would probably buy his PPVs and with the money he is surely getting, UFC would be losing out on him. 



> UFC honcho Dana White tells TMZ Tito Ortiz could be booted from the organization if the domestic violence charges against him prove legit.
> 
> White says, "We're gonna be fair, but we could cut him."
> 
> White wants to wait until the police reports are in, but the UFC can take action even before the legal process runs its course. "Other than going on a killing spree, being accused of domestic violence is the worst thing you can have going for you," White says.


http://www.tmz.com/2010/04/26/tito-ortiz-dana-white-ufc-arrest-jenna-jamison-ufc-domestic-violence/


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

i agree, its a wait and see kind of thing


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

Just a guess here, but im willing to bet that Dana would love to have a reason to get rid of Tito after his last performance against Forrest. Tito looked pretty bad and im sure the UFC spent a lot of money to get him back. Dana is a very smart business man (see how that whole Hendo thing turned out), he would probably love to be able to cut his losses on what so far is looking like an over valued fighter.


----------



## gwabblesore (May 2, 2007)

I'm on Tito's side. I just don't buy it. If a former LHW champion _really_ laid any kind of beat down on a woman it could not be covered up by a ******* arm brace. Jenna is a psycho and the cops just did what they felt like they were supposed to do. This shit could have found the news without Tito being arrested too, and it might not have cast the police department in a positive light.


----------



## SonofJor-El (Jan 20, 2008)

Tito is in deep shit here. Given all these factors:

- MMA's reputation in the "mainstream" press ( not helped by the Strikeforce brawl.
- What's happening with Roethlisberger in NFL
- The fact that she does have visible bruises and he's a trained fighter
- Chris Brown/Rihanna being a non-so-distant memory

The charges only have to be better than 50/50 that he was in the wrong to get past a grand jury and go to trial. If she presses charges and goes through with it, Tito may be forced to take a plea deal to avoid a lengthy trial and/or jail time. Even with a misdemeanor conviction on his record that may be all the UFC needs to get trash his contract.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

I have yet to see an actual injury on Jenna. An arm brace doesn't count. Hosptials give out braces like old people give out hard candy. I don't like Tito but this is bullsh*t. I think this is just Jenna trying to become relevant again. Sorry Jenna, not gonna happen.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

The only thing that can harm Tito if she actually does press charges is that he is a fighter, as soon are you are legally a fighter and get paid doing it, you so much as hit a person, it counts as intent to injure with a weapon(not sure if I got the whole wording right). Those type of trails are much worse.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Spec0688 said:


> The only thing that can harm Tito if she actually does press charges is that he is a fighter, as soon are you are legally a fighter and get paid doing it, you so much as hit a person, it counts as intent to injure with a weapon(not sure if I got the whole wording right). Those type of trails are much worse.


I'd like to see the evidence to support that claim. Sound a lot like the 'black belts have to register themselves as deadly weapons' myth.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

jasvll said:


> I'd like to see the evidence to support that claim.


I am on Tito's side but I am just stating the facts. There isnt a bruise on her and if he actually did hit her in the arm, she would probably need a cast since her arms are like twigs. There will be a whole lot more information coming out in the next 24 hours.


----------



## hommage1985 (Apr 22, 2007)

Spec0688 said:


> I am on Tito's side but I am just stating the facts. There isnt a bruise on her and if he actually did hit her in the arm, she would probably need a cast since her arms are like twigs. There will be a whole lot more information coming out in the next 24 hours.


Not everybody bruises up like Arturo Gatti and we all know that Tito has no power in his punches at all.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

can't help Jenna that she has a history of failed marriage, lies, infidelity, scandals and is a professional whore...

can't help Tito that he is Tito Ortiz...interesting to see how this one turns out


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

It's amazing how many people already support Tito, not knowing really *anything* about the actual incident.


----------



## TLC (Apr 5, 2010)

Rampage just got into a car wreck. It's not like he suddenly decided "ololo I'm going to smash my car into someone on the highway". 

What he did that was messed up was briefly evading the police, but considering his state of mind he probably didn't react the way he should've because he was scared.

This is a different story, although I think this is preemptive because the facts aren't out.


----------



## Sicilian_Esq (Sep 7, 2008)

Pft. Rampage caused some poor woman to miscarry. 

Don't act like you have a conscience now, Dana.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

Sicilian_Esq said:


> Pft. Rampage caused some poor woman to miscarry.
> 
> Don't act like you have a conscience now, Dana.


there was no proof of that, she had a miscarriage long after she was hit and if your going to have a miscarriage after a big hit it wont take 1-2 months.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

Meh, just waiting for the facts. A heel, a fighter, a reality star, a porn star, whatever... It is still a family with kids involved. Hope it works out for the best for them.


----------



## HaVoK (Dec 31, 2006)

Regardless if a high-profile athlete is the victim or the perp they still have to put themselves in the situation. Take Ben and the Steelers. No charges filed but he was still punished. Tito chose his lifestyle. The UFC is a business so even if no charges are filed he could still be punished. The public does not look at the convictions. Just being accused is enough to warrant discharge. Its not really fair but that is how it goes and every athlete knows this.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> It's amazing how many people already support Tito, not knowing really *anything* about the actual incident.


It's amazing how many people already are against Tito as well. Until information comes out, no one should assume anything.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

HaVoK said:


> Regardless if a high-profile athlete is the victim or the perp they still have to put themselves in the situation. Take Ben and the Steelers. No charges filed but he was still punished. Tito chose his lifestyle. The UFC is a business so even if no charges are filed he could still be punished. The public does not look at the convictions. Just being accused is enough to warrant discharge. Its not really fair but that is how it goes and every athlete knows this.


This isnt the same as the NFL where you basically play/paid weekly during the season. The UFC cant do anything with his money if no charges are filed since he is contracted to get paid. The only way the UFC can cut tito at this moment is if the chargers are legit, I dont know if there is a clause in his contract that he cant be cut for bad performance or w/e..if so the UFC can cut him if he loses a couple more fights if they truly feel bad about it.

So UFC cant really suspend him because that wont do anything, hes still contracted to get paid the same and have the same amount of fights at the end of the day.

if they truly want to punish him, they can put him on a bad PPV if he has PPV money in the contract so he doesnt earn a lot from the sales.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

From the way fighters make it sound the UFC can pretty much cut people for what ever damn reason they please, some fighters have had problems with it in that the contract only keeps the fighters from leaving if they want but do nothing to secure the fighters employment.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

didn't say much at all here if you look carefully except that say domestic violence is very bad for your image.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

Well the only reason Tito is still in the UFC instead of strikeforce is because can has a fairly large fanbase for being a above average fighter. I am not sure how this will effect his fanbase, the more casual fans forgive more easily from what I see, and more of the hardcore fans(the ones who are on here) didnt care for him before this.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

Look at all the crap athletes do in other sports. Keep it in perspective.


----------



## Jamal (Aug 20, 2009)

Dana White Says UFC Could Cut Tito Ortiz Due to Arrest

4/26/2010 6:22 PM ET By Ben Fowlkes

http://www.mmafighting.com/2010/04/26/dana-white-says-ufc-could-cut-tito-ortiz-due-to-arrest/

Coming off a weekend of action-packed fights at the WEC's pay-per-view debut, Dana White must have thought that the cycle of bad news in the MMA world had finally come to an end. Not so fast.

As news spread earlier today that UFC light heavyweight Tito Ortiz had been arrested for felony domestic assault against girlfriend Jenna Jameson, we knew it was only a matter of time before we'd hear from White.

Talking to TMZ.com, White underscored the seriousness of the charges, saying, "Other than going on a killing spree, being accused of domestic violence is the worst thing you can have going for you."

That might be overstating it a little – certainly there are a number of victims and incarcerated perpetrators of other violent crimes who would disagree with the remark – but in terms of the damage to Ortiz's reputation, White has a point. If Ortiz is convicted of domestic assault against Jameson, who says she'll be pressing charges, the stain on his career and legacy as a pro fighter would likely never be fully erased.

Of course, there are also concerns over Ortiz's continued employment with the UFC. White remarked that the UFC could release the fighter from the organization for the arrest, saying, "We're gonna be fair, but we could cut him."

It doesn't help the PR situation for the UFC that Ortiz can currently be seen as a coach on season eleven of "The Ultimate Fighter." Having a fighter who was just arrested on suspicion of assaulting the mother of his children showing up as a representative of the brand on Spike TV every Wednesday night certainly doesn't help the UFC's image, even if it's been widely rumored that Ortiz's coaching tenure doesn't last throughout the entire season.


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

Dana white should shut his fat mouth and quit talking to TMZ. Its fkking unprofessional and unfair to Tito for Dana to be suggesting he could be cut, without even knowing the full story. 

Dana has no class.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

vilify said:


> Dana white should shut his fat mouth and quit talking to TMZ. Its fkking unprofessional and unfair to Tito for Dana to be suggesting he could be cut, without even knowing the full story.


Did you read the article? Dana said that he _could_ be cut, but they're going to be fair.



> Dana has no class.


That's nothing new.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

Dana hasn't really said anything judgemental or out of line, just saying it how it is at this stage.

Thing is though, Tito probably hasn't punched her or anything serious, she's just wearing some armband. Best just wait to see how it turns out.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

TLC said:


> Rampage just got into a car wreck. It's not like he suddenly decided "ololo I'm going to smash my car into someone on the highway".
> 
> What he did that was messed up was briefly evading the police, but considering his state of mind he probably didn't react the way he should've because he was scared.
> 
> This is a different story, although I think this is preemptive because the facts aren't out.


lol, what a ridiculous post. It was okay for Rampage to pull multiple hit and runs, evade police, and cause the loss of life because... he was scared? News flash. Very few people jump for joy when pulled over by the police, but that doesn't give us 'understandable' or just cause to go on a crime spree. I can't even take your post seriously. 

And I'm not supporting Tito, but for all we know, Jenna attacked him, he grabbed her by the arm, and she called the police in a petty, yet effective move. I'm sorry. Tito is no saint, but what makes us think that Jenna Jameson is the salt of the earth? There is so much more to this story than meets the eye, and I'm not even going to speculate until further facts come out. But for Dana to threaten to cut Tito, after bailing out Rampage for far worse... yes... it's as hypocritical as it gets, and almost looks as though Dana is looking for a reason. And this is coming from a Dana White fan.


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

UrbanBounca said:


> Did you read the article? Dana said that he _could_ be cut, but they're going to be fair.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nothing new.


Dana doesnt need to feed into the hysteria. a simple comment acknowledging the serious allegations and how UFC doesnt stand for that type of stuff blah blah blah" is enough.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

I pretty much agree with Canadian here, i just think Tito is an idiot and either way this isn't going to help his rep. Domestic violence all people think of is....you beat the shit out of your wife or girlfriend. tie that into the whole MMA fighter and the UFC image and yeah I could easily see this as almost a red herring that Tito is gone....

EDIT: @ Urban....Villy said "suggested" thats the same as considering, or could....


----------



## Jamal (Aug 20, 2009)

Anthony Johnson was also charged with beating his girlfriend wasnt he?

Back in 09, heres the article, so it aint the first time by any means.

- ANTHONY JOHNSON ARRESTED & CHARGED WITH 2 FELONIES (UPDATED)

Thursday, July 09, 2009 - by Damon Martin - MMAWeekly.com 

http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=9133










UFC welterweight, Anthony Johnson, was arrested in Hayward, CA with 2 separate felony charges, and a misdemeanor charge for events that took place there on June 27.

When contacted by MMAWeekly.com on Thursday, representatives from the Hayward, CA Police Department confirmed Johnson's arrest, along with the charges he faces. According to the report, Johnson was held for 2 felony charges which included penal code 422 for criminal threats, and penal code 591, for damage to a power line, which according to police representatives usually means cut telephone lines.

Alternate reports from MMAMania.com have surfaced stating that it was actually a cell phone that was destroyed, which prevented the call to police for an emergency.

Johnson was also arrested with a misdemeanor charge of penal code 243 for battery on a spouse/domestic violence.

The UFC welterweight was released that same day on bail, but no other details were available at the time of publication.

Ken Pavia of MMA Agents was contacted by MMAWeekly.com and issued the following statement:

"It has come to our attention that an email is being circulated with false and misleading information pertaining to Mr. Anthony Johnson. On behalf of Mr. Johnson we would like to address this issue. On June 27th Mr. Johnson was arrested in Hayward California and was charged with misdemeanors stemming from an alleged altercation with an ex-girlfriend.

Mr. Johnson is completely and unequivocally innocent of all charges. These charges are completely outside the realm of Mr. Johnson’s character; he has no prior criminal record and has never been in trouble with the law. Furthermore, any assertion that the UFC played a part in posting his bail or in covering up the incident is completely untrue. Unfortunately, professional athletes are frequently made the victim of such false accusation.

As this has been a stressful time for Mr. Johnson, we ask that judgment is withheld until all relevant facts have come to light."


Stay tuned to MMAWeekly.com for more information on this story as it becomes available.


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

the shit happens among everyone doctors, plumbers, entertainers, athletes whatever.


----------



## UFC on VHS (Dec 16, 2008)




----------



## Jamal (Aug 20, 2009)

Tito, in his cell


----------



## Sicilian_Esq (Sep 7, 2008)

Spec0688 said:


> there was no proof of that, she had a miscarriage long after she was hit and if your going to have a miscarriage after a big hit it wont take 1-2 months.


What Medical School did you attend?

University of WebMD?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

^^^^I believe it was determined in court by medical experts that the miscarriage was not caused by the wreck.


----------



## fosure (Dec 10, 2009)

*Tito maybe let go from UFC*

Dana White has reported that the UFC may be cutting Tito Ortiz from the roster pending police reports. White stated "We're going to be fair, but we could cut him. Other then going on a killing spree, being accused of domestic violence is the worst thing you can have going for you," 

Source and video


----------



## Jamal (Aug 20, 2009)

Yeah, its in the other 2 Tito threads too.

I hope hes not cut personally, he threw her to the ground, a woman can slap a man these days and thats normal.


----------



## Diokhan (Jul 8, 2008)

No way domestic violence is worse than Rampage's "road rage" or whatever you wanna call it. Not saying Jenna getting beaten up isn't serious thing, but there is no way tito can outstrike Rampage's pick up truck that is going 80-150km/h hitting everything.
Then again, Jenna can afford pretty damn good lawyers if she wants to and even though Tito obviously tried to finish the fight early this time, it could very well end up as another devastation decision loss in a row for him. 



Jamal said:


> I hope hes not cut personally, he threw her to the ground, a woman can slap a man these days and thats normal.


I expected better ground game from Jenna, she used to be pretty good at sweeping and mounting her opponent when she was younger. Guess she wasn't willing to try it this time which caused Tito to g&p her into a TKO. xD


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> It's amazing how many people already support Tito, not knowing really *anything* about the actual incident.


big +1 to this.



AlphaDawg said:


> It's amazing how many people already are against Tito as well. Until information comes out, no one should assume anything.


yep, +1 to this too. how can people take sides based on rumours and uninformed media reports. How can people support Tito already without knowing the facts. He could have brutally beaten her for all we know. In which case he deserves everything he gets. (Regardless of the fact his wife is an ex pornstar, or junkie or whatever, hitting a woman is NEVER justified)

On the flip side, how can people slam him for it?! he could be totally inocent and his name being dragged through the mud.

This whole thing reminds me of Michael Jackson fans standing outside of court with banners of support whilst he was on trial for touching kids. they had no idea if he was innocent or guilty.


----------



## Jesy Blue (May 8, 2009)

jasvll said:


> I'd like to see the evidence to support that claim. Sound a lot like the 'black belts have to register themselves as deadly weapons' myth.


 far as i know it's a state by state law; in Massachusetts, if you are at or above the mid range of training (usually green or blue for most styles; green for Shoulin Kenpo) and you have have had any classes, participated in tournaments or used it in any recorded active way (self defense, police or military duties, or committing a violent crime [just being held in a maximum security prison counts]) within the past 3 years, you are considered a weapon.
no registration fee!



Toxic said:


> From the way fighters make it sound the UFC can pretty much cut people for what ever damn reason they please, some fighters have had problems with it in that the contract only keeps the fighters from leaving if they want but do nothing to secure the fighters employment.


 in the professional wresting promotions, many wrestlers are under contracts and it's common for people to just be released because "We have no more need for you." i'm pretty sure the UFC contracts are a little more specific and not so liberal, but still the employer most times has the right to dismiss for any reason.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Jesy Blue said:


> far as i know it's a state by state law; in Massachusetts, if you are at or above the mid range of training (usually green or blue for most styles; green for Shoulin Kenpo) and you have have had any classes, participated in tournaments or used it in any recorded active way (self defense, police or military duties, or committing a violent crime [just being held in a maximum security prison counts]) within the past 3 years, you are considered a weapon.
> no registration fee!


 Care to cite your source?


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

it's true.

Chuck Norris has to get a license to carry a concealed weapon, just to wear pants.


----------



## Kado (Apr 18, 2010)

I think its just another high level celebrity fight, saying that I will wait for everything to come out before I try to say who is wrong or right.


----------



## BlacklistShaun (Sep 30, 2009)

I think Jenna is just wearing that arm sling to cover up all the track marks...there really isn't any bruise under there except where the needle went in...


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

jasvll said:


> Care to cite your source?


I don't think there is any mandatory registration as the myth alludes but having any type of professional training would work very much against you in an incident involving violence. If the matter actually went to criminal or civil court they would most certainly site your capabilities and use them against you.


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

I think that whole "deadly weapon" stuff is a myth. A fighter beating someone up will face the same charges as a plumber beating someone up with the same injuries. 

Now I could see the courts being more aggressive or harsh in terms of punishment for the fighter, but overall charges will have to be the same.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

It is not a myth, a fighter can have more power in punches and accuracy then a normal person walking down the street, and can inflict some serious damage to the brain. If the old Mike Tyson punched you without gloves, you would most likely be in a coma.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

evilappendix said:


> I don't think there is any mandatory registration as the myth alludes but having any type of professional training would work very much against you in an incident involving violence. If the matter actually went to criminal or civil court they would most certainly site your capabilities and use them against you.


And your defense would try to spin it in your favor, but to quote Airplane, "That's not important right now".



Spec0688 said:


> It is not a myth, a fighter can have more power in punches and accuracy then a normal person walking down the street, and can inflict some serious damage to the brain. If the old Mike Tyson punched you without gloves, you would most likely be in a coma.


 That doesn't address whether or not the law accounts for martial arts training, which is the 'myth' being referred to.


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

The law says nothing about someone being a deadly weapon if they are a fighter. But the courts definately give you a much harsher sentence if you got into a fight and have any sort of hand to hand combat training. That is why if a boxer or military personel gets into a bar fight he is basically screwed.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> The law says nothing about someone being a deadly weapon if they are a fighter. But the courts definately give you a much harsher sentence if you got into a fight and have any sort of hand to hand combat training. That is why if a boxer or military personel gets into a bar fight he is basically screwed.


 Examples?


----------



## BlacklistShaun (Sep 30, 2009)

Well, you get in a situation where someone gets beat up and it ends up in court the opposing lawyer would have to be an idiot to not bring up the fact that the person who won the fight had some kind of training...that's just how it goes.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

BlacklistShaun said:


> Well, you get in a situation where someone gets beat up and it ends up in court the opposing lawyer would have to be an idiot to not bring up the fact that the person who won the fight had some kind of training...that's just how it goes.


 Again, whether or not prosecutors will attempt to make something out of it isn't being questioned.


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

jasvll said:


> Examples?


I don't have examples because boxers do not get into street fights very often. But it is used in court and veiwed badly by a jury. I am not going to go look all over the internet so you can feel better about yourself. This is common sense stuff.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> I don't have examples because boxers do not get into street fights very often. But it is used in court and veiwed badly by a jury. I am not going to go look all over the internet so you can feel better about yourself. This is common sense stuff.


 I didn't think you would need to 'go look all over the internet'. Based on your certainty, I assumed you knew of at least one specific example where a fighter's profession affected his sentencing. Sorry for bothering you.


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

jasvll said:


> I didn't think you would need to 'go look all over the internet'. Based on your certainty, I assumed you knew of at least one specific example where a fighter's profession affected his sentencing. Sorry for bothering you.


Tyson a couple of years ago got into a fight and was charged with second degree assault when he just threw a couple of punches at two guys in a club. That is off the top of my head and I do not even have to go look into all the others where a boxer gets into a fight. If it was anyone else it would have just been passed over as nothing.


----------



## SonofJor-El (Jan 20, 2008)

vilify said:


> I think that whole "deadly weapon" stuff is a myth. A fighter beating someone up will face the same charges as a plumber beating someone up with the same injuries.
> 
> Now I could see the courts being more aggressive or harsh in terms of punishment for the fighter, but overall charges will have to be the same.


It's not a myth here in Hawaii. Back when I was in high school in the early 90s, two guys got in a fight outside a local restaurant. During the fight one guy landed a kick to the other's chest that caused his heart to instantly stop; he was dead before he hit the ground. The guy that threw the kick had no record, a long list of charcater witnesses to testify to his good nature, and by many accounts was acting in self-defense. 

With all those circumstances, you'd think that he'd be charged with low degree involuntary manslaughter at worst right? Nope! The guy that landed the kick was a taekwondo instructor so the prosecution held that he should have known the potential lethality of his techniques and charged him with full blown MURDER as though it were premeditated. They pressured him into accepting a manslaughter plea. I remember the details vividly because one of my teachers at the time said he was friends with the taekwondo instructor and was broken up over the situation.

I also remember because I thought it was complete bullshit. You're telling me that I'm allowed to learn martial arts for self-defense against some trying to hurt me but if I get good at defending myself, I'm the one at fault?! WTF?! As wrong as it is in my mind, that's what the legal precedent (at least in this state) says. :thumbsdown:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> Tyson a couple of years ago got into a fight and was charged with second degree assault when he just threw a couple of punches at two guys in a club. That is off the top of my head and I do not even have to go look into all the others where a boxer gets into a fight. If it was anyone else it would have just been passed over as nothing.


Steven North must be a badass boxer/fighter to get the same charges as the 'baddest man on the planet'.


> SARATOGA SPRINGS - Police charged an Andrew Street man with assault after a fight on Caroline Street early Saturday.
> Police said they witnessed Steven J. North, 35, punch a man in the face outside a bar on Caroline Street at 2:13 a.m. The man was bleeding from his nose as a result of the punch and was taken to Saratoga Hospital for treatment, police said.
> North, of 28 Andrew St., was charged with second-degree assault, a felony, police said.


http://www.poststar.com/news/local/article_ada53048-c3cc-5db1-940f-859a6cad20a4.html

The difference here seems to be that Tyson was famous and therefore his case was notable, not that he was a fighter, therefore his case was handled differently.


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

jasvll said:


> Steven North must be a badass boxer/fighter to get the same charges as the 'baddest man on the planet'.
> 
> http://www.poststar.com/news/local/article_ada53048-c3cc-5db1-940f-859a6cad20a4.html
> 
> The difference here seems to be that Tyson was famous and therefore his case was notable, not that he was a fighter, therefore his case was handled differently.


Tyson punched the guys in the chest and did no real damage if I recall. Obviously if the guy got taken to the hospital other things are in play here than just that.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

SonofJor-El said:


> It's not a myth here in Hawaii. Back when I was in high school in the early 90s, two guys got in a fight outside a local restaurant. During the fight one guy landed a kick to the other's chest that caused his heart to instantly stop; he was dead before he hit the ground. The guy that threw the kick had no record, a long list of charcater witnesses to testify to his good nature, and by many accounts was acting in self-defense.
> 
> With all those circumstances, you'd think that he'd be charged with low degree involuntary manslaughter at worst right? Nope! The guy that landed the kick was a taekwondo instructor so the prosecution held that he should have known the potential lethality of his techniques and charged him with full blown MURDER as though it were premeditated. They pressured him into accepting a manslaughter plea. I remember the details vividly because one of my teachers at the time said he was friends with the taekwondo instructor and was broken up over the situation.
> 
> I also remember because I thought it was complete bullshit. You're telling me that I'm allowed to learn martial arts for self-defense against some trying to hurt me but if I get good at defending myself, I'm the one at fault?! WTF?! As wrong as it is in my mind, that's what the legal precedent (at least in this state) says. :thumbsdown:


I know you're responding to someone else, and your response does address their claims, but I'm just going to point out that even here, you see that the prosecution had to leverage the man to get their way. They didn't have the law inherently on their side, nor did they have the confidence to expose the elevated charges to the courts. In fact, they may have simply used the prevalence of the myth to scare the guy into a plea bargain. These tactics are part of the game.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> Tyson punched the guys in the chest and did no real damage if I recall. Obviously if the guy got taken to the hospital other things are in play here than just that.


Yeah, the other guy had a bloody nose. That changes everything.


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

When I took my concealed carry class, the instructors were a detective from the local PD and lawyer who worked with the DA. They were going over when you can and can not use deadly force. Physical features did play into it, such as if you were a small person and had a larger man attacking you. They also specifically mentioned that if you knew that the person knew martial arts, that it would likely play into the court's/police's decision.


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

jasvll said:


> Yeah, the other guy had a bloody nose. That changes everything.


Do you go to the hospital for a bloddy nose? If so then I will stop argueing with you. Everyone else agrees with me anyways.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

NotDylan said:


> When I took my concealed carry class, the instructors were a detective from the local PD and lawyer who worked with the DA. They were going over when you can and can not use deadly force. Physical features did play into it, such as if you were a small person and had a larger man attacking you. They also specifically mentioned that if you knew that the person knew martial arts, that it would likely play into the court's/police's decision.


This is better, but still, it addresses the victim's right to escalate defense against a life or death attack; it's the inverse of the situations we've been discussing.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> Do you go to the hospital for a bloddy nose? If so then I will stop argueing with you.


In that case, all the time. They call me 'Bleedy McNostrils' at the local ER.

I'm guessing people who are pressing charges after a bar fight tend to go to the hospital, too.



> Everyone else agrees with me anyways.


Then you must be right, but just to be sure, do you have any evidence of this absolute consensus?


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

jasvll said:


> In that case, all the time. They call me 'Bleedy McNostrils' at the local ER.
> 
> I'm guessing people who are pressing charges after a bar fight tend to go to the hospital, too.
> 
> ...


Your awesome buddy. You know exactly that people do not get taken to the hospital over something as small as a bleedy nose. And what exactly does him pressing charges have anything to do with him going to the hospital. Do you know the guy who was charged criminal history? Do you know if he was supposed to be around that guy? DO you know if the guy who was rushed to the hospital had some sort of condition that made it so that it is possibly deadly if he starts bleeding which would explain the hospital visit? And lastly how do you know this guy has not got some sort of hand to hand combat training? 

You need to go look up exaggeration in the dictionary too.:sarcastic12:


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

SonofJor-El said:


> It's not a myth here in Hawaii. Back when I was in high school in the early 90s, two guys got in a fight outside a local restaurant. During the fight one guy landed a kick to the other's chest that caused his heart to instantly stop; he was dead before he hit the ground. The guy that threw the kick had no record, a long list of charcater witnesses to testify to his good nature, and by many accounts was acting in self-defense.
> 
> With all those circumstances, you'd think that he'd be charged with low degree involuntary manslaughter at worst right? Nope! The guy that landed the kick was a taekwondo instructor so the prosecution held that he should have known the potential lethality of his techniques and charged him with full blown MURDER as though it were premeditated. They pressured him into accepting a manslaughter plea. I remember the details vividly because one of my teachers at the time said he was friends with the taekwondo instructor and was broken up over the situation.
> 
> I also remember because I thought it was complete bullshit. You're telling me that I'm allowed to learn martial arts for self-defense against some trying to hurt me but if I get good at defending myself, I'm the one at fault?! WTF?! As wrong as it is in my mind, that's what the legal precedent (at least in this state) says. :thumbsdown:


That story actually makes sense to me but its a bit different because the "victim" died. 

what i'm saying is there is a "myth" that if a boxer/fighter punches someone, he can automatically be hit with a weapons related charge like aggravated assault or "misuse of a deadly weapon" simply because he's licensed to fight. I dont believe it and no one has yet to point out any similar cases.

So my understanding is it doesnt matter if you're a plumber or a boxer and you beat up your neighbor, your charges will be based on your motive and the extent of damage not your profession. :thumbsup:


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> Your awesome buddy. You know exactly that people do not get taken to the hospital over something as small as a bleedy nose. And what exactly does him pressing charges have anything to do with him going to the hospital. Do you know the guy who was charged criminal history? Do you know if he was supposed to be around that guy? DO you know if the guy who was rushed to the hospital had some sort of condition that made it so that it is possibly deadly if he starts bleeding which would explain the hospital visit? And lastly how do you know this guy has not got some sort of hand to hand combat training?


 Everything I've said is based on the source I've provided, which is certainly more than we can say for your claims.



> You need to go look up exaggeration in the dictionary too.:sarcastic12:


 Yes, clearly, I'm the one waxing hyperbolic.


----------



## Bonnar426 (Jul 18, 2006)

Personally, I wouldn't mind if Tito was cut from the UFC. If he is a women beating piece of trash then cut him by all means. Other then that what exactly has this man done in the UFC that would warrant him staying. He hasn't had a victory in over 2 years. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Dana brought him in for the sole purpose of revitalizing Chuck's career. This was an easy win for Chuck!


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

jasvll said:


> Everything I've said is based on the source I've provided, which is certainly more than we can say for your claims.
> 
> 
> > I like how you addressed none of my questions about the one case you brought up.
> ...


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> I like how you addressed none of my questions about the one case you brought up.


 I told you where to find everything I know about the case. If the answers aren't addressed there, I guess you're out of luck. And to be more explicit, the fact that the news report was fairly detailed, yet made no mention of any of your concerns, is a reason, per se, to think that the answers are no.



> I already told you that I am not going to go looking all of the internet so that I can come up with something that we already know.


 But you chose to respond to the *question* of whether or not this was something we already know. Did you really think 'We already know because we already know' was a meaningful answer?




> It will be used it court, and it will look bad in the eyes of a jury. Looking bad in the eyes of the jury means harsher sentence as well as more prone to being sent to jail or fined large amounts of money.


Or, the jury could decide that it wasn't a factor, or the prosecution could persuade them that the defendant's knowledge, experience, and history made their decision to act more informed. Again, again, again, No one's arguing whether or not it could be a factor in a given case.


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

jasvll said:


> I told you where to find everything I know about the case. If the answers aren't addressed there, I guess you're out of luck. And to be more explicit, the fact that the news report was fairly detailed, yet made no mention of any of your concerns, is a reason, per se, to think that the answers are no.
> 
> But you chose to respond to the *question* of whether or not this was something we already know. Did you really think 'We already know because we already know' was a meaningful answer?
> 
> ...


First off so that case has nothing to do about a proffesional fighter's case. 

What are you trying to say about the already know thing? I go confused about what you are asking.

Then if you are not arguing it would be a factor then what are you arguing? I am not saying this is exactly what is going to happen in a court case. Obviously anything can happen in a case I mean OJ got away with the murder of two white people in a time that no one thought that would happen. I am saying it looks bad in a lot of people eyes when a professional in any hand to hand combat uses it against someone who does not. Especially little skinny women.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> First off so that case has nothing to do about a proffesional fighter's case.


 Exactly. That's the point.



> What are you trying to say about the already know thing? I go confused about what you are asking.


I originally suggested that the distinction in law for martial artists as 'deadly weapons' was a myth and asked for evidence that it wasn't. No one provided any.

Later, when the goal post was moved, I suggested the legal stigma associated with martial arts training may be myth. Some people, said it definitely wasn't. I asked for evidence. You then claimed:


You said:


> The law says nothing about someone being a deadly weapon if they are a fighter. *But the courts definately give you a much harsher sentence if you got into a fight and have any sort of hand to hand combat training. That is why if a boxer or military personel gets into a bar fight he is basically screwed.*


Notice how this says A is true because A is true. Not being satisfied with this, I asked for concrete examples of this occurring. You responded with variations on "We know because we already know, so I don't need evidence for anything I've said", which is a shame because evidence was (and still is) the only thing I was asking for. 



> Then if you are not arguing it would be a factor then what are you arguing?


 That martial arts training may be just like anything else. Picking up a bottle in a bar fight is a factor. Being a senior citizen is a factor. Being drunk is a factor. Being freakishly strong is a factor. Being a mayor is a factor. 

I'm asking for evidence that being a martial artist tends to be a liability in a court of law. I'm also still hoping for evidence of the original claim that there's an automatic escalation of charges in some states or at the federal level.



> I am saying it looks bad in a lot of people eyes when a professional in any hand to hand combat uses it against someone who does not. Especially little skinny women.


 That's fine, but it doesn't address my arguments, and I'm not arguing against it.


----------



## The505Butcher (Jul 30, 2009)

jasvll said:


> Exactly. That's the point.
> 
> 
> I originally suggested that the distinction in law for martial artists as 'deadly weapons' was a myth and asked for evidence that it wasn't. No one provided any.
> ...


We do not know anything about the case you brought up so we do not wknow hy he was charged with the same thing as Tyson.

No it is a myth that you have to register, I never said that we know so we already know. I just am too lazy to go around looking at cases which are hard to find and then the ruling of the case which is even harder to find. I do know that a jury is a group of people like me, who probably feel that if someone who is trained to neutralize someone fights someone who is not I would view that as bad. 

So if you agree that martial arts training is a factor do you think it is a negative factor or positive factor? 

I do not think it is an autamatic but I think in a high profile case like this one as well as it being a fighter will makes the odds of it being a harsher sentence are increased.


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

The505Butcher said:


> We do not know anything about the case you brought up so we do not wknow hy he was charged with the same thing as Tyson.


 But we know more about your Tyson example? I just provided a quick example that a routine bar fight can result in the same charges Tyson received. There are more. The point is that Tyson's charges aren't evidence of boxers/martial artists being treated differently in and of itself.



> No it is a myth that you have to register, I never said that we know so we already know.





You said:


> I already told you that I am not going to go looking all of the internet so that I can come up with something that we already know.


http://www.mmaforum.com/ufc/75772-dana-says-tito-can-booted-if-charges-legit.html#post1171355



> I just am too lazy to go around looking at cases which are hard to find and then the ruling of the case which is even harder to find. I do know that a jury is a group of people like me, who probably feel that if someone who is trained to neutralize someone fights someone who is not I would view that as bad.


 But that is speculation, which is not what I was asking for. 



> So if you agree that martial arts training is a factor do you think it is a negative factor or positive factor?


 I don't know, which is why I asked for evidence.



> I do not think it is an autamatic but I think in a high profile case like this one as well as it being a fighter will makes the odds of it being a harsher sentence are increased.


 May be.


----------



## zarny (Mar 4, 2007)

Being arrested does not mean a person is guilty or even that charges will be laid.

I'm not a Tito fan but until the facts are known no one should judge.


----------



## punchbag (Mar 1, 2010)

Spec0688 said:


> I dont really know how to take this, What Rampage did was bad but a domestic case tops that. I can see it happening though, not many people would probably buy his PPVs and with the money he is surely getting, UFC would be losing out on him.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/2010/04/26/tito-ortiz-dana-white-ufc-arrest-jenna-jamison-ufc-domestic-violence/


Nooooo!, he's a wife-beating asshole, pay him half the cash he normally gets, and give him a Anderson,Belfort,Rashad, or Shogun and lets watch him get the "Punishment" he deserves who doesn't want to see that?:thumbsup:


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

jasvll said:


> I don't know, which is why I asked for evidence.
> 
> May be.


Here jasvll, this may shed a little more light on the issue. While the article doesn't mention a martial artist specifically having his hands ruled deadly weapons by a court, it does go over some of the legal jargon that would allow for them to be classified as such under the right circumstances. It sounds like if a trained martial artist were to really obliterate some one, chances are they'd receive a stiffer sentence than random Joe Blow.

http://www.labbatebalkan.com/article.php?news_id=113

The Hand or Foot as a "Deadly Weapon"

Most important to the martial artist's analysis of the law is the question of whether the hand or foot can be classified as a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. As in many other areas of the law, there is no unity of opinion. Some jurisdictions hinge upon a literal translation of the statute and hold that the hand or foot is not commonly understood as a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument; therefore, an assault with the hand or foot is not deemed to be an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. Other jurisdictions, including New York, have a broader view and hold that while feet and hands are not deadly or dangerous weapons per se, the manner of their use in particular situations may make them deadly weapons.[ix]

The New York Penal Law in Section 10.00 defines "deadly weapon" and "dangerous instrument," respectively, as follows:

"12. Deadly instrument means any loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, may be discharged, or a switchblade knife, gravity knife, dagger, billy, blackjack, or metal knuckles.

"13. Dangerous instrument means any instrument, article or substance, including a vehicle as that term is defined in this section, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury." (emphasis supplied).

The New York case of People v. Rumaner, 357 N.Y.S.2d 735 (3d Dep't 1974), discussed this particular question. The bouncer in a bar was grabbed by defendant, who knocked him down and kicked him ten or twelve times in the face while wearing heavy boots. The victim was severely injured, and his vision was permanently impaired. The defendant was convicted of second degree assault.

The defendant argued on appeal that no intent had been proved, but this was rejected by the court. It held that the requisite intent could be inferred from the defendant's conduct. The fact that he stomped on the victim's head ten or twelve times negated any defense that his actions were inadvertent and provided sufficient proof of the required criminal intent.

The defendant also argued that his boots were not dangerous instruments, which was also rebuffed by the court, which stated:

"Any instrument, article or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, is capable of causing death or other serious physical injury is a dangerous instrument within the meaning of the statute."

Therefore, the court concluded that the trier of fact was justified in finding that the boots were a dangerous instrument since they were used to inflict the serious physical injury upon the victim.

In People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113 (1981), the New York Court of Appeals upheld a conviction of assault in the first degree where the defendant, while wearing rubber boots, punched and kicked his victim into a comatose state. The Court held that the rubber boots were "dangerous instruments" in light of the manner in which the defendant administered the "vicious stomping." The Court noted that the New York definition of dangerous instrument is expansive enough to make any object, no matter how innocuous it appears when used for its normal purpose, a dangerous instrument "when it is used in a manner which renders it readily capable of causing serious physical injury." Even a handkerchief, the court noted, can fall into this definition when used to asphyxiate a victim, although it is by no means an inherently dangerous instrument.

Although many cases look to the type of shoe or boot worn by the defendant to see if a dangerous instrument was in fact used, jurisdictions in which courts apply an expanded interpretation of "deadly weapon" or 'dangerous instrument" may hold that an unclad foot or fist falls within these categories. Certainly these courts will look to the circumstances in which they are used, including the ability and strength with which the perpetrator uses them. Thus, a prosecutor could and most certainly would use the fact that one is highly trained in a martial art to show his use of his hands or feet constitute the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument where serious bodily injury is ultimately inflicted by the martial artist.

-sorry mods, I don't think I quoted this properly...


----------



## jasvll (Mar 28, 2007)

Good article. Thanks.


----------



## vilify (Mar 23, 2010)

so we all agree its a myth. thanks guys.


----------



## Shadyen (Apr 8, 2007)

oh but wait... what if the martial artist is showing restraint by only bloodying a nose or choking someone out. I'm sure a defense attorney would be more than happy to play that angle.

"My client is a trained martial arts expert. Therefore, he is considered a deadly weapon. By the plantiff still living and breathing is conclusive proof that the defendant was acting only in self defense. Allowing himself to apply just enough injury to his aggressor, to afford himself with escape!"

could work for you, could work against. who knows.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

This thread is severly off topic....I think Tito looked funny in his press conference.....reality is that tito is probably not going to be doing anything with the UFC.....i mean him and Dana have never been totally tight and even with the new found friendship....this could be enough to get him booted!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

coldcall420 said:


> This thread is severly off topic....I think Tito looked funny in his press conference.....reality is that tito is probably not going to be doing anything with the UFC.....i mean him and Dana have never been totally tight and even with the new found friendship....this could be enough to get him booted!!!:thumbsup:


:confused03:

I think you just have too much Tito hate inside yourself, He wont get booted if he is not a fault, why would Dana just hand Tito over to SF? Anthony Johnson had domestic violence also but he never got the heat that Tito is getting. I really saw nothing funny with Tito in that press conference.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

Spec0688 said:


> :confused03:
> 
> I think you just have too much Tito hate inside yourself, He wont get booted if he is not a fault, why would Dana just hand Tito over to SF? Anthony Johnson had domestic violence also but he never got the heat that Tito is getting. I really saw nothing funny with Tito in that press conference.


 
Or perhaps you have to much love????:confused03: Tito isnt Anthony Johnson and as eluded to earlier on the thread Dana most likely is looking for a reason to get rid of Tito.

Tito is easy to hate....his mouth never closes and everything he claims he is going to do he doesnt....PERIOD!

Do you remember him standing at the podium asking Forrest what he is going to do when he fight's a 100% healthy Tito this time......just to lose and make B/S excuses...Im sure Dana loved that, we all know the fans didnt...

Tito can easily go to Strikeforce and Dana will make the same argument he made for Dan when he sent Dan packing....

No I dont like Tito....if you dont find him or that press conference amusing thats something that you dont find amusing that I do...:thumbsup: 


Let me get this straight Tito....you married a woman that has a history of Marraige problems, has been banged by like 1000 dudes, is unstable and your surprised she is eating oxycotten....or that she is a drama queen.....sorry Tito:sarcastic12:


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

coldcall420 said:


> Or perhaps you have to much love????:confused03: Tito isnt Anthony Johnson and as eluded to earlier on the thread Dana most likely is looking for a reason to get rid of Tito.
> 
> Tito is easy to hate....his mouth never closes and everything he claims he is going to do he doesnt....PERIOD!
> 
> ...


Yeah the only people I feel sorry for in this situation are the kids. This marriage was one of convenience and spectacle. The has been champ of the UFC marries the has been queen of porn so they can stir up drama together where ever they go and steal a little more lime light for themselves. Now, unfortunately, it seems to be falling apart as many would have guessed but they happen to have kids together. I may catch a little heat for saying this but you know how we curb the pet population right?


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

Tito makes the UFC more money losing than Anthony Johnson does winning. I think Tito is safe in the UFC. Dana has to say "we can cut him for this' just to maintain the image of the business and the sport. Tito and his wife got into a scuffle, it isn't like he ran a dog fighting syndicate.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

coldcall420 said:


> Or perhaps you have to much love????:confused03: Tito isnt Anthony Johnson and as eluded to earlier on the thread Dana most likely is looking for a reason to get rid of Tito.
> 
> Tito is easy to hate....his mouth never closes and everything he claims he is going to do he doesnt....PERIOD!
> 
> ...


I really dont see the difference why Dana would want to cut him now, what would be the point of signing him? Surely he knew what he was getting in Tito and we havent really seen anything different since he left and came back. If you think Dana all of a sudden wants to get rid of him, thats just weak. 

In the end, Dana is just all about money. Hendo wasnt getting the PPV sales and Tito sadly is, until Tito loses his fanbase which obviously doesnt include you, he will remain in the UFC.

I may come off as some Tito fanboy but I just dont hate him, I also dont like him either. I dont really cares if he loses his next 5 fights or gets in there for a title shot. The only reason Dana even brought up possibly cutting Tito is because of the recent attention MMA has been getting due to SF.

I dont care what was brought up about Anthony Johnson and his domestic case, Dana never said anything like that about AJ when it occurred to him, and especially since he says now that its possibly the worst thing you can do besides go on the killing spree... I mean cmon, it doesnt take a genius to figure out hes doing PR.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

look man tito hasnt won a legitimate undisputed fight since 2004. his split decisions against forest and vitor are very controversial and most people think tito lost those fights. then he beat a 45 year old ken shamrock which is nothing special. 

now ontop of the fact that he is not a good fighter this domestic abuse case would give dana a very good reason to get rid of him because he would be a very bad image for the UFC.

if this gets any worse for tito then he is gone no doubt about it.


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

americanfighter said:


> look man tito hasnt won a legitimate undisputed fight since 2004. his split decisions against forest and vitor are very controversial and most people think tito lost those fights. then he beat a 45 year old ken shamrock which is nothing special.
> 
> now ontop of the fact that he is not a good fighter this domestic abuse case would give dana a very good reason to get rid of him because he would be a very bad image for the UFC.
> 
> if this gets any worse for tito then he is gone no doubt about it.


Like I said though, you are bringing nothing new to the discussion. Didnt Dana know what he was getting in Tito when he signed him? *nothing* has changed since he left ufc and when he returned... oh yea... a loss to forrest which isnt exactly all that bad, and a domestic violence accusation. 

What is new exactly? the only thing is the domestic violence, you guys are acting like we are seeing some new Tito when he got signed, hes the same fighter he was before and I am sure Dana knows what he was signing into the UFC.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

Spec0688 said:


> I really dont see the difference why Dana would want to cut him now, what would be the point of signing him? Surely he knew what he was getting in Tito and we havent really seen anything different since he left and came back. If you think Dana all of a sudden wants to get rid of him, thats just weak.
> 
> In the end, Dana is just all about money. Hendo wasnt getting the PPV sales and Tito sadly is, until Tito loses his fanbase which obviously doesnt include you, he will remain in the UFC.
> 
> ...


 
Okay, so whats your point??? Besides you dont think Dana brought him back just to cut him.....reality is he could have done some dumb shit while filming the Ultimate Fighter hell it could involve Tito and Jenna either way you dont know.....so take a deep breath and just breathe...eventually you will see on the Ultimate Fighter why Frankilin has to come in and perhaps that and the current events were enough to make Dana say that....either way like I said....we dont know.


----------



## americanfighter (Sep 27, 2006)

Spec0688 said:


> Like I said though, you are bringing nothing new to the discussion. Didnt Dana know what he was getting in Tito when he signed him? *nothing* has changed since he left ufc and when he returned... oh yea... a loss to forrest which isnt exactly all that bad, and a domestic violence accusation.
> 
> What is new exactly? the only thing is the domestic violence, you guys are acting like we are seeing some new Tito when he got signed, hes the same fighter he was before and I am sure Dana knows what he was signing into the UFC.


yeah but if you put Domestic abuse ontop of the horrible fighter he is that raises the stakes.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

tito is NOT a horrible fighter. he isn't top tier anymore, but horrible? even old and unevolved he'd still beat a large percentage of UFC LHW's.


----------

