Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   McDonalds does better background checks than the Alabama State police   (msn.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Christopher Bauer, Law enforcement agency, Alabama State Trooper, law enforcement agency, 11-year-old girl, forged letter, state trooper  
•       •       •

4356 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 May 2021 at 4:21 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



45 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-05-07 12:34:23 AM  
No real surprise
 
2021-05-07 2:40:02 AM  
the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.
 
2021-05-07 4:23:37 AM  
Every day the cops provide all the evidence needed to establish that ACAB.
 
2021-05-07 4:29:45 AM  
The age of consent in Alabama is 10, so he has that going for him.
 
2021-05-07 4:31:57 AM  
The cops should use Baskin Robbins people.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-07 4:40:58 AM  
As if this isn't considered an asset by the Alabama state police.
 
2021-05-07 4:42:53 AM  
Wow so they didn't do any background check at all, otherwise the FBI would have told them everything about this sick fark.  Instead they just let him become a cop.
 
2021-05-07 4:46:46 AM  
media2.giphy.comView Full Size
 
Xai [TotalFark]
2021-05-07 4:53:40 AM  
He was white and a rapist, that's overqualified for the Alabama police.
 
2021-05-07 5:02:50 AM  
Cop and child molester.
He'll have quite the fun time in prison.
 
2021-05-07 5:07:32 AM  
As an FBI agent....  "...including that he raped a coworker at knife-point."

Which did not lead to "So he went to trial and was acquitted/convicted..."

But instead...

"...dismissed or forced to resign because of disciplinary action."

When I see one cop arrest another one, you can come and tell me how they aren't all bad.  Until then, we can throw this shiatbag on the pile of shiatbags that the system protected until word got out about yet another bad apple.
 
2021-05-07 5:20:30 AM  

Dischorran: As if this isn't considered an asset by the Alabama state police.


Depends. Was he related to the child?
 
2021-05-07 5:25:05 AM  
I would say "Wow, he totally doesn't look like a pedo rapist,"

but then I remembered, Alabama, they all look like that,
 
2021-05-07 5:52:08 AM  

koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.


Read the article and thought the same thing. It's why in small professions the same assholes just go from job to job to job and you're never totally rid of them. I'd see this all the time in the ROV community. Only a few thousand of us in the world maybe 25% work in the GoM. You'd flush a turd from your company only to see them float up as a company rep or tech for another company you're working with.  You'd never be free of them.
Granted I can see the other side of things too. I don't want a former employer talking shiat about me just because I refused to go back out to work for two months after being home for under 12 hours.
That said actual documentation-backed charges/violations/god damn felonies/forcible rape of a child should be disclosed.
 
2021-05-07 6:04:30 AM  

koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.


If anyone has EVER done any work as a hiring manager, this is a GIANT red flag.

If all you can get is, 'Yup, So-and-so was employed here from X tio Y', then you know there is some shiat.  If the person left on good terms, then you will usually getting a glowing endorsement.  If they got shiatcanned for any reason, or told to leave before they got fired, all you get is acknolwdgement of employment.

And yes, I've been on both sides of that situation as a manager.  In one case, the idjit didn't even clear a reference check with me first.  The manager calling me got a 'Uhh, who are you talking about?  Let me check my records for a second ..'...  after I checked, they got 'Yup.  I remember him now.  I can confirm he was employed by us.  Anything else today?'

I think they got the message loud and clear.
 
2021-05-07 6:10:44 AM  

koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time...


I once overheard a head administrator field a call checking references: "I'm uncomfortable discussing that employee without a signed release." A second later, "You're welcome." Of course if she could provide a good reference there'd be no need for a release...
 
2021-05-07 6:17:29 AM  
McDonald's doesn't even try to do background checks.
 
2021-05-07 6:23:56 AM  

veale728: McDonald's doesn't even try to do background checks.


memegenerator.netView Full Size
 
2021-05-07 6:30:50 AM  

GrogSmash: koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.

If anyone has EVER done any work as a hiring manager, this is a GIANT red flag.


Every company I have ever worked at would only verify employment dates and job titles as a matter of policy.   None of them would give a "Yeah, that guy was great!" review even if you were great.

As noted above, it is a liability issue.
 
2021-05-07 6:45:38 AM  

omg bbq: koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.

Read the article and thought the same thing. It's why in small professions the same assholes just go from job to job to job and you're never totally rid of them. I'd see this all the time in the ROV community. Only a few thousand of us in the world maybe 25% work in the GoM. You'd flush a turd from your company only to see them float up as a company rep or tech for another company you're working with.  You'd never be free of them.
Granted I can see the other side of things too. I don't want a former employer talking shiat about me just because I refused to go back out to work for two months after being home for under 12 hours.
That said actual documentation-backed charges/violations/god damn felonies/forcible rape of a child should be disclosed.


ROV? GoM?
 
2021-05-07 6:54:56 AM  

Smoking GNU: omg bbq: koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.

Read the article and thought the same thing. It's why in small professions the same assholes just go from job to job to job and you're never totally rid of them. I'd see this all the time in the ROV community. Only a few thousand of us in the world maybe 25% work in the GoM. You'd flush a turd from your company only to see them float up as a company rep or tech for another company you're working with.  You'd never be free of them.
Granted I can see the other side of things too. I don't want a former employer talking shiat about me just because I refused to go back out to work for two months after being home for under 12 hours.
That said actual documentation-backed charges/violations/god damn felonies/forcible rape of a child should be disclosed.

ROV? GoM?


"Really Old Valentine" and "Government of Mauritania." At least, that's how I read it...
 
2021-05-07 6:55:36 AM  

Smoking GNU: omg bbq: koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.

Read the article and thought the same thing. It's why in small professions the same assholes just go from job to job to job and you're never totally rid of them. I'd see this all the time in the ROV community. Only a few thousand of us in the world maybe 25% work in the GoM. You'd flush a turd from your company only to see them float up as a company rep or tech for another company you're working with.  You'd never be free of them.
Granted I can see the other side of things too. I don't want a former employer talking shiat about me just because I refused to go back out to work for two months after being home for under 12 hours.
That said actual documentation-backed charges/violations/god damn felonies/forcible rape of a child should be disclosed.

ROV? GoM?


Remote operated vehicle

And seeing as he's talking about flushing a turd... Gastric observation medium?
 
2021-05-07 7:17:08 AM  
what applying to the Alabama State police may look like
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-07 7:24:12 AM  

Smoking GNU: omg bbq: koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.

Read the article and thought the same thing. It's why in small professions the same assholes just go from job to job to job and you're never totally rid of them. I'd see this all the time in the ROV community. Only a few thousand of us in the world maybe 25% work in the GoM. You'd flush a turd from your company only to see them float up as a company rep or tech for another company you're working with.  You'd never be free of them.
Granted I can see the other side of things too. I don't want a former employer talking shiat about me just because I refused to go back out to work for two months after being home for under 12 hours.
That said actual documentation-backed charges/violations/god damn felonies/forcible rape of a child should be disclosed.

ROV? GoM?


Rectal orifice verifier. Got one mom.
 
2021-05-07 7:36:17 AM  
Well, yeah; McDonalds has a reputation to uphold, and doesn't want violent psychopaths tarnishing it...
 
2021-05-07 7:36:48 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Smoking GNU: omg bbq: koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.

Read the article and thought the same thing. It's why in small professions the same assholes just go from job to job to job and you're never totally rid of them. I'd see this all the time in the ROV community. Only a few thousand of us in the world maybe 25% work in the GoM. You'd flush a turd from your company only to see them float up as a company rep or tech for another company you're working with.  You'd never be free of them.
Granted I can see the other side of things too. I don't want a former employer talking shiat about me just because I refused to go back out to work for two months after being home for under 12 hours.
That said actual documentation-backed charges/violations/god damn felonies/forcible rape of a child should be disclosed.

ROV? GoM?

Rectal orifice verifier. Got one mom.


Remotely Operated Vehicle

Gulf of Mexico

/ROV dude
//not one of aforementioned turds
///but I've met a few
 
2021-05-07 7:53:50 AM  
hahahaha
 
2021-05-07 8:14:20 AM  

Rent Party: As an FBI agent....  "...including that he raped a coworker at knife-point."

Which did not lead to "So he went to trial and was acquitted/convicted..."

But instead...

"...dismissed or forced to resign because of disciplinary action."


Not really worth prosecuting?  No. Would it rewind every case the guy had worked on for years?  Yes.  Did this happen under an independent FBI?
 
2021-05-07 8:15:27 AM  
And the reason he wasn't prosecuted for his prior criminal conduct while at the FBI was......?
That sure as hell would have produced a public information paper trail that anyone could have found, whether he ultimately was convicted or not.
 
2021-05-07 8:25:34 AM  

kendelrio: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Smoking GNU: omg bbq: koder: the state police, found "no derogatory comments were uncovered by former employers."

In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits. As a result, they will only confirm you worked there for a specific period of time.

They probably intentionally worded it this way because they didn't care enough to verify it and know admitting that is embarrassing. Or, if it's one of the more severely corrupted departments, they knew and let it slide because it's easier to control their cult when they have something juicy to hang over them.

Read the article and thought the same thing. It's why in small professions the same assholes just go from job to job to job and you're never totally rid of them. I'd see this all the time in the ROV community. Only a few thousand of us in the world maybe 25% work in the GoM. You'd flush a turd from your company only to see them float up as a company rep or tech for another company you're working with.  You'd never be free of them.
Granted I can see the other side of things too. I don't want a former employer talking shiat about me just because I refused to go back out to work for two months after being home for under 12 hours.
That said actual documentation-backed charges/violations/god damn felonies/forcible rape of a child should be disclosed.

ROV? GoM?

Rectal orifice verifier. Got one mom.

Remotely Operated Vehicle

Gulf of Mexico

/ROV dude
//not one of aforementioned turds
///but I've met a few


And an oceaneering one at that! What's it like working for The Empire?
I was with Helix and then S7. Helix was everything wrong with an oil business. S7 was actually a really good place.
 
2021-05-07 8:34:14 AM  
I've never applied to work for McDonalds. I am sure its filling out a one page form, waiting to speak to the manager where he asks.."What shift do you want to work?" then he'll tell you your hourly wage, you agree, shake hands and start next Tuesday.

I know, I missed a few things like, "what size are you so we can order you a uniform?"
 
2021-05-07 8:55:12 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Wait until his brother Jack finds out about this !!!
 
2021-05-07 9:05:26 AM  
Here's a cop that hasn't killed anybody, and you people still aren't happy. I give up.
 
2021-05-07 9:21:43 AM  

Rent Party: As an FBI agent


The article does not say he was an FBI agent. He probably was a support employee of some kind.
 
2021-05-07 9:22:59 AM  

Rent Party: Which did not lead to "So he went to trial and was acquitted/convicted..."

But instead...

"...dismissed or forced to resign because of disciplinary action."


Translation: They wanted him gone and found another employee willing to lie to get him fired, or they pressured that employee to get them to lie to get him fired.
 
2021-05-07 9:25:22 AM  

cefm: And the reason he wasn't prosecuted for his prior criminal conduct while at the FBI was......?


It probably never happened.
 
2021-05-07 9:44:43 AM  
First clue: who the hell would quit a job as an FBI agent to become a mere cop?
 
2021-05-07 9:48:30 AM  

edmo: First clue: who the hell would quit a job as an FBI agent to become a mere cop?


Yeah, sounds like an origin story for a douche.
 
2021-05-07 10:06:00 AM  

edmo: First clue: who the hell would quit a job as an FBI agent to become a mere cop?


There are some people who don't want that much time away from family. FBI can require relocation and lots of OT with travel. If you can get a job as a cop somewhere with extended family, the burden for childcare can be greatly reduced. If your spouse has or wants a job somewhere specific, that can be upended if the FBI transfers you somewhere else.

Remember, in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, he routinely transferred FBI agents all over the country without concern for family relocation problems while he himself never once had to deal with a job relocation (he was always at HQ in or near DC).
 
2021-05-07 10:20:57 AM  

mrmopar5287: Rent Party: Which did not lead to "So he went to trial and was acquitted/convicted..."

But instead...

"...dismissed or forced to resign because of disciplinary action."

Translation: They wanted him gone and found another employee willing to lie to get him fired, or they pressured that employee to get them to lie to get him fired.


nah just have the MoFo Pedo get a friend to pretend to be their boss and say what they need them to say.

At least that is how it is done in IT.
 
2021-05-07 10:45:00 AM  

mrmopar5287: edmo: First clue: who the hell would quit a job as an FBI agent to become a mere cop?

There are some people who don't want that much time away from family. FBI can require relocation and lots of OT with travel. If you can get a job as a cop somewhere with extended family, the burden for childcare can be greatly reduced. If your spouse has or wants a job somewhere specific, that can be upended if the FBI transfers you somewhere else.

Remember, in the days of J. Edgar Hoover, he routinely transferred FBI agents all over the country without concern for family relocation problems while he himself never once had to deal with a job relocation (he was always at HQ in or near DC).


Very possible but that'd be a surrendering a lot in pay and bennies that you can't find most places. And prestige, which figures into it if you're a believer in the law.
 
2021-05-07 11:09:16 AM  

edmo: that'd be a surrendering a lot in pay


If you're transferred somewhere with a high cost of living (lots of FBI field offices are in major urban areas) the pay really doesn't go as far as you think. Then you have to think about if your spouse isn't working because if they have to quit a job to move with you for your transfer, that's a huge drop in income depending on what your spouse does.
 
2021-05-07 11:37:29 AM  
That's some epic level fail on a background check.
 
2021-05-07 11:55:35 AM  

grimlock1972: That's some epic level fail on a background check.


Would be fail if they tried.

Pretty sure they just don't care about stuff like this.
 
2021-05-07 12:19:13 PM  
koder:  In most states no derogatory comments will be made by any former employers with a smart legal/HR department because doing so exposes them to defamation suits.   . . .


I once read a collection of odd references with veiled insults:

• Tries very hard

• Apparently honest.  We were unable to prove anything.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.