#National criminal background check

[mensusaonlinestore1]

WAYS TO CONDUCT AN EMPLOYEE SCREENING TEST FOR THE GOOD HIRING FOR YOUR COMPANY

Hiring the best candidates, successful candidates for your business or company is the most important thing which could make you successful.

So, it is important to hire the employee right way and with right manner.

Not only this, you need to know who is right candidate for you. An employee who is giving interview to your office obviously left a curriculum viate or resume for you to look into his profile. However, much information always needed to know on behalf of the employer or hiring manager just to ensure that he/she is going to be the right candidate for you.

WHAT DOES THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SERVICES ACTUALLY DO?

The background check (not only the criminal background check, it is all kind of background check services) of employment will actually provide you the ability to verify the information the candidate provided in resume. If one candidate lied, one can see the red flags in the resume and could make final decision of hiring.

The background check is also often called background screening services which fetches the past record of the candidates, where he stayed etc as well.

The background check services also fetches if you did any legal violation in any other city and then moved to another city. But more such record finding team/work will always need more money and time to find the such things and this is why background screening sometimes getting costly.

But more the accurate data will help you to make your decisions more accurate and whether you will hire this guy or not.

A recent study says more than 92% of employers did background verification one times in their hiring life .

BENEFITS OF BACKGROUND CHECKING SERVICES – Well, all the employers have the right to do background check for their offices and no doubtly, this helped the employer to select the right candidate for their office. Background screening services may help company to get rid of violent, aggressive, rude and reckless behavior performing candidates from office. The background screening services also helps to compete with federal laws.

TYPE OF BACKGROUND SCREENING PROCESS – There are various kind of background screening process done by employers and some of them are following –

SOCIAL SECURITY VERIFICATION – The social security number verification is the most important factor. The verification of social security number gives details of all pending penalties against the candidate from govt. level.

DRUG TESTING VERIFICATION – Drug testing is really a required thing in background testing process. Drug destroys our energy, if someone is drug addicted; he can make other drug addicted, which may eventually destroy society, professional work culture as well. That’s why drug testing verification, which is mostly done by healthcare experts. If you are going to verify your candidate’s drug testing verification make sure you do this.

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION VERIFICATION – Educational qualification as provided by candidates/ employee is the most important thing to verify. The background screening companies may have access to database of the college /universities for which they verify on behalf of the company. What candidate gave you in his/her resume must be verified along with data accurately so that you can make sure you are hiring the right employee for your company.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY VERIFICATION – One can also use background checks to verify the candidate’s employment history. Typically, the hiring manager contacts previous employers via phone or email to make this verification. Some employers only offer basic information, such as position and date of employment.

There could be many other kind of verification; this is not just limited to it.

However, before you start background check make sure you do the following things as well for your safety, human right point of view –

Gather legal knowledge , your rights , employee rights from your end both federal and state laws

Set clear policies regarding your company background check. Better you write it in your company hiring and selection terms and conditions.

Let him aware regarding your background check campaign. If you state require candidates permission to do background check then just take permission from your candidate 1st and then start background screening.

If you need background check services you can contact with Reliable checks, which are pretty good to provide you with background check services.

Our background check services starts from as low as $29 per hour basis.

If you are looking for background check services based in United States, then you can contact us immediately.

We offer robust, dynamic background check employment screening services to all of our clients. We delivery results on time so that you would not have any delay in hiring.

All we just need social security number and date of birth. We do the rest of the things for you.

You can email or call whatever you can do to contact with us. Ask us questions and we would love to give you answers for all of your questions.

This article is written by Reliable checks , who does background check or background screening services for employees with just only social security numbers and date of birth.

Lets know today , the pros and cons of background checking. Mostly, they have pros and which is discussed in this blog. Lets read today , why background check is so important. If you are looing for any background checking companies Reliable checks is here to provide this .

Looking for companies to do kind of background check ? Reliable checks does this with starting of just $29. If you are looking for background screening services within United states , read the blog and contact us immediately. Hire us and see how do we deliver.

[apexbackgroundcheck1]

Complete Guide to National Criminal Background Checks

Apex Background Check provides a thorough national criminal background check. We provide you with accurate and up-to-date information, our experienced staff use cutting-edge technologies and huge databases. Our service ensures a thorough analysis of criminal records from across the country, whether you're screening potential workers, tenants, or individuals for personal reasons.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A grand jury in Lake County, Illinois, has returned 117 felony counts against Robert E. Crimo III, the man accused of shooting into a crowd during a July 4th parade in Highland Park, killing seven people and woounding dozens of others.

Crimo, 21, is charged with 21 counts of first-degree murder, three counts for each deceased victim.

He also is charged with 48 counts of attempted murder and 48 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm for each victim who was struck by a bullet, bullet fragment or shrapnel, a release from the Lake County State's Attorney's Office said.

CNN has reached out to Crimo's attorney for comment.

"I want to thank law enforcement and the prosecutors who presented evidence to the grand jury today. Our investigation continues, and our victim specialists are working around the clock to support all those affected by this crime that led to 117 felony counts being filed today," State's Attorney Eric Rinehart said in the release.

Crimo is expected to appear in person in court on August 3 for his arraignment, the release said. He has been held without bail since being arrested during a traffic stop hours after the shooting.

Crimo voluntarily admitted to authorities he emptied two 30-round magazines before loading his weapon with a third and firing again, Lake County Assistant State's Attorney Ben Dillon said earlier this month during a virtual bail hearing. If convicted on first-degree murder charges, Crimo faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Authorities have said they have not learned the suspected shooter's motive.

According to state police, Crimo bought rifles and other guns between June 2020 and September 2021. He passed four background checks, including checks of the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Almost three years before his son killed seven people and wounded dozens at a July 4th parade in Highland Park, police say Robert Crimo Jr. signed the young man's application for an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card.

The elder Crimo agreed to sponsor Robert "Bobby" E. Crimo III's gun license -- required to purchase a gun in Illinois -- in 2019, just months after local police received a report the son had said "he was going to kill everyone" in his family, police say. Officers had also checked on the young man earlier that year after he had "attempted to commit suicide by machete," according to a police report. An attorney for the parents says they have disputed details of the incidents in the police reports.

Now, with Bobby Crimo facing seven counts of first-degree murder in connection with the Independence Day shooting, his father insists he has done nothing wrong and denies any responsibility for his son's actions.

The Lake County state's attorney has not ruled out charges against the father, saying -- in response to a question about the elder Crimo's legal responsibility -- that prosecutors are still reviewing the evidence "in terms of who knew what when" in the case. The state's attorney has not said anything to suggest the parents were aware of their son's plans.

In the days after the 21-year-old gunman interrupted the holiday parade with a barrage from a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle, his father and mother, Denise Pesina, have hired a new lawyer as their actions before their son's heinous attack have come under question.

But criminal charges against the father and possibly the mother in the deadly shooting committed by their son would be highly unusual and difficult for prosecutors to prove, according to legal experts. Prosecutors must convince a jury or a court the parents aided and abetted the crime and consciously disregarded a known risk of death to prove involuntary manslaughter, experts say.

"These are hard cases when it's not the individual who actually fired the weapon, but someone else who we are expecting to have seen it coming," said Eve Brensike Primus, a University of Michigan law professor who specializes in criminal procedure. "Those are high barriers."

Attorney George Gomez, who represents both parents, said the family is "trying to cooperate with all local, state and federal authorities at the moment."

Asked if he felt there was any criminal wrongdoing by his clients, particularly the father, Gomez referred to Bobby Crimo's father: "We take the position that my client ... did nothing wrong in this case."

Gomez, when asked on Monday about the elder Crimo's sponsorship of his son's gun license despite the previous police visits to the home, told CNN that "in hindsight, when you look at everything, of course, the father would have never consented for his son to apply for the FOID."

CNN's calls to Crimo Jr. have not been returned. Pesina also did not respond to requests for comment.

Lake County State's Attorney Eric Rinehart said there is no criminal liability for sponsoring a firearm owner's ID but noted that prosecutors were still reviewing evidence.

"There's different ways to look at potential criminal liability in this case," Rinehart told CNN. "There's not a per se violation of law if you vouch for somebody in a FOID card and they end up doing something terrible like this. But, having said that, we are continuing to investigate the case and continuing to explore all options."

Asked about the potential criminal liability of the father, Rinehart said Monday that investigators are trying to piece together what family members and others may have known before the attack.

"We're looking at a lot of different ways to understand what was going on in the days before the attack," he told CNN. "What everyone's knowledge was, not just family members but beyond. So there's a lot of work to be done. There are lots of ways to look and think about what people knew and should have done or could have done."

Rinehart declined to say whether anyone else could be charged.

PROSECUTORS WOULD HAVE TO SHOW PARENTS FORESAW CRIME

Eric A. Johnson, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, says a reckless homicide charge against the parents remains a possibility.

Johnson says reckless homicide is applicable to any act that causes a death, so long as the person was reckless in performing the act -- meaning they were aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the act would cause someone's death.

Parents of accused shooters historically haven't been charged in mass shootings until recently. The most notable case is that of a 15-year-old accused of killing four fellow students at a Michigan high school in November, CNN legal analyst Areva Martin says.

Michigan prosecutors say the negligence of parents Jennifer and James Crumbley allowed their son, Ethan, access to the weapon used in that mass shooting. Each has pleaded not guilty to four counts of involuntary manslaughter. Their son has also pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys filed notice they plan to use an insanity defense at trial.

A major difference between the two cases is the age of the defendants. Crumbley was 15 at the time of the school shooting. Bobby Crimo is 21.

"Their responsibility for overseeing him, parenting him, is different in kind from that of the Crumbley parents, who had a minor," Primus said of Bobby Crimo's parents.

Illinois prosecutors would have to establish that Crimo's parents not only had a disregard for human life but also foresaw their child committing a crime, according to legal experts.

"The question this prosecutor is going to have to ask: Was it reasonably foreseeable that someone who had made a suicide attempt and who had threatened to kill others would lead that person ... to commit the crime against the paradegoers," Martin said. "And if the answer to that question is yes ... there definitely could be manslaughter charges filed against his dad, who did sign that consent form and gave consent for him to gain access to the high-powered weapon and weapons that were used."

GUNMAN EXHIBITED DISTURBING BEHAVIOR AT HOME

In aftermath of the July 4th shooting, people in the Highland Park area and beyond have asked why the young man's parents did not take his increasingly disturbing behavior in recent years more seriously.

That alone, however, does not make his parents criminally culpable for his actions.

The younger Crimo uploaded his own music videos on several major streaming outlets and on a personal website under the name "Awake the Rapper." Some of the music featured ominous lyrics and animated scenes of gun violence.

One video, titled "Are you Awake," showed the young man with multicolored hair and face tattoos. "I need to just do it. It is my destiny," he declared. In the video, a stick-figure animation resembling Bobby Crimo wears tactical gear and carries out an attack with a rifle.

Another video shows a stick figure that also resembles the younger Crimo lying face down in a pool of blood. The cartoon figure is surrounded by police officers with their guns drawn. A third video features Bobby Crimo in a helmet and a tactical vest as he drops bullets onto a classroom floor.

Officers were called to the family's home multiple times over the years after domestic disputes involving the parents and the troubling behavior of their son, police records show.

In April 2019, according to police reports, officers came to the home for a wellness check on Bobby Crimo, then 18, after a call that he had tried to take his life with a machete one week earlier. The report said mental health professionals dealt with the matter.

Months later, in September, police responded to a report that Bobby Crimo had "stated that he was going to kill everyone" in his family. The young man admitted to officers that he had been depressed and had a history of drug use, the police report says.

"The threat was directed at family inside of the home," said Chris Covelli, spokesman for the Lake County Major Crimes Task Force.

Gomez, the attorney who represents both parents, said his clients have disputed the accuracy of both police reports. He said the parents described the September 2019 incident as a "domestic dispute" and told him Bobby Crimo did not speak of suicide or of killing anyone else.

Gomez said officers spoke to Bobby Crimo at the time and he "denied ever trying to harm somebody and trying to harm himself."

Officers confiscated 16 knives, a dagger and a "Samurai type blade" that were in Bobby Crimo's closet. Later that day, his father went to the police station and picked up the collection, which belonged to him, according to the police report.

Gomez said the knives were "collectibles" and not "weapons for use of any type of harm." He added, "At the end of the day, the officers were there. They assessed the situation."

Highland Park police submitted a "Clear and Present Danger" report about the visit to the Illinois State Police, the police report says. State police say in the report that Bobby Crimo told officers he didn't intend on harming himself or others when police questioned him.

State Police Master Sgt. Delilah Garcia says that at the time they looked at whether Bobby Crimo had a FOID card that should have been revoked, but he did not. Three months later, the elder Crimo signed as the sponsor of his son's gun license.

Bobby Crimo used the card sponsored by his dad to legally purchase multiple guns before he turned 21 last year, passing four background checks, according to state police. That included the semi-automatic rifle he used in the shooting.

Gomez told CNN that "the family denies that there was any issues of suicide" during the 2019 incident and stressed law enforcement found "no safety risk."

"I believe that the parents would have done things differently if ... they had known that their son would have been able to commit such atrocities and would have in hindsight been able to see and connected all the dots at the end of the day," Gomez told CNN.

"The parents feel terrible for the actions of their son, for the loss of those who lost their lives, and for the devastation that it's caused the community."

FATHER SAYS HE THOUGHT SON WOULD TAKE WEAPONS TO RANGE

Primus, the University of Michigan professor, questions whether the two incidents in 2019 are enough criminally to charge Bobby Crimo's parents.

"I don't know if that makes it reasonably foreseeable that the person will be homicidal," she said of the suicide attempt. "There are plenty of people who are suicidal who are not homicidal."

As for the threats to kill family members, Primus says, prosecutors must take the context into account.

"What were these threats? How serious were they? If it was knives versus guns, does that matter? Does that mean that they could foresee this kind of thing with an automatic weapon? These are factual questions. Part of what is so hard about a lot of these kinds of cases is whenever you're dealing with legal standards -- was a person reckless or could they reasonably foresee something -- these are standards that are incredibly fact specific."

The elder Crimo told the New York Post last week that he decided to sponsor his son's firearm license because he thought the young man would take the weapons to a shooting range.

"He bought everything on his own, and they're registered to him," the father told the newspaper.

"They make me like I groomed him to do all this," the elder Crimo said, according to the report. "I've been here my whole life, and I'm gonna stay here, hold my head up high, because I didn't do anything wrong."

The shooter's father told the Post he wants his son to serve a long prison sentence.

"That's life," the elder Crimo said. "You know you have consequences for actions. He made a choice. He didn't have to do that."

Gomez told CNN that "the family denies that there was any issues of suicide at the time," and stressed law enforcement found "no safety risk."

"I believe that the parents would have done things differently if ... they had known that their son would have been able to commit such atrocities and would have in hindsight been able to see and connected all the dots at the end of the day," Gomez told CNN.

"The parents feel terrible for the actions of their son, for the loss of those who lost their lives, and for the devastation that it's caused the community."

PARENTS MORE LIKELY TO FACE CIVIL LAWSUITS

CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson says he believes prosecutors contemplating charges against shooters' parents are taking notice of the growing public frustration with a series of mass shootings nationwide.

"Prosecutors are seeing that and they're making an assessment of what can we do, what role can we play in order to hold people accountable at all levels, not just the shooters, but everyone and anyone who may have had a part," he said.

Jackson also points to the ongoing prosecution of Ethan Crumbley's parents in Michigan.

The filing against James and Jennifer Crumbley -- who have pleaded not guilty -- alleges that when they left their son's school on November 30, more than an hour before the shooting began, they knew their son was depressed and "fascinated with guns."

"Defendants were in a better position than anyone else in the world to prevent this tragedy, but they failed to do so," the court filing states.

Referring to the Crumbleys, Jackson said: "The prosecutor is not suggesting they intended to do it ... They are suggesting they were reckless. If you want to deter this from happening then you have to look at everywhere that you can to find accountability."

Northwestern University Professor Lori Ann Post, who studies mass shootings, agrees, noting that criminal charges could have been filed against Nancy Lanza -- mother of Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza -- had he not killed her before his 2012 assault on a Connecticut elementary school.

"Something's got to break here pretty soon where somebody starts taking accountability for mass shootings," she said. "And I think if you're going to facilitate and enable a mass shooter then you should be held accountable."

Parents of mass shooters are more likely to face civil lawsuits where the legal bar is lower, according to experts.

"If anything comes out of this, just based on the history of these kind of complaints, I would bet that it would be a civil case, not a criminal case," Jonathan Metzl, a professor of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University who studies gun violence, said of the likelihood of legal troubles for Bobby Crimo's parents.

Metzl says he surprised at how often parents have helped young mass shooters obtain weapons.

"The question I have is, 'What does that reveal?'" he said. "I really think we need to know more about what kind of reasoning parents have for giving guns to children who are clearly disturbed. Perhaps the parents are in denial? Or they feel like this is a mode of negotiation or gift giving?"

[nationallawreview]

Congress Eases Criminal Offense Restrictions for Employment With Financial Institutions

Included in the defense spending bill signed by President Biden in December 2022 is a section with key provisions for financial institutions that will ease restrictions on hiring candidates with criminal records. Section 5705 in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023, titled “Fair Hiring in Banking,” further narrows convictions that would constitute a bar to employment…

[detectivebambam]

In their 30s, the twins begin a charity known as The Minyard Project.

Funded by thousands of volunteers, exy fans, and episodes of Celebrity Jeopardy, The Minyard Project provides prenatal and postpartum care for single mothers, as well as proper background checks for foster families.

The funds also provide hygiene products and luggage for foster children, daycare services for single/working parents, and in-house counseling services for children living in group homes.

The Minyard Project has provided safe homes for over 10,000 children, prevented 20% of abandonment/neglect cases, and brought the national number of foster children down by 30%.

Foster children are 3x more likely to graduate high school without a criminal record or substance addiction.

[samueldays]

I don’t know if you’ve seen the news about the federal lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain charging them with hiring discrimination. Apparently refusing to hire people who fail a criminal background check is racist. Do you think there’s any chance of this rolling back some disparate impact hiring rules?

Almost no chance, good luck with that! Most of the reporting I can find seems to agree on this example of tone:

Federal officials said they do not allege Sheetz was motivated by racial animus, but take issue with the way the chain uses criminal background checks to screen job seekers. The company was sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin.

“Federal law mandates that employment practices causing a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications must be shown by the employer to be necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular jobs at issue,” EEOC attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a statement.

Finding evidence of wrongdoing is too hard work for the EEOC, so they find evidence of Bad Percentage and prosecute people for that instead!

Disparate impact is a totalitarian insanity of American law, for which the EEOC should be prosecuted by the successor regime.

And it's also well established in precedent of the current regime that disparate impact law gets to micromanage hiring, reverse the burden of proof, invent a Numbercrime, create contradictory obligations on employers to fill racial quotas and also not do that, and contribute to even more problems as side effects such as university diploma mills and inflaming racial taboos.

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

WHY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE JUST AS UNLIKELY AS EVER, UNFORTUNATELY

I'm a leftist (Libertarian-Socialist), who votes progressive, because I live under an "elected" government, and I had thought I had purged the MSNBC/CNN Nation from my friends list, but apparently not, as my timeline is just chock-full of media-driven hysteria over current events, so here's a primer:

"Liberals" who think their arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.

They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America's governing criminal cartel/duopoly.

Both cults "I like simple and ineffectual 'solutions', because they make me feel like I'm doing something, and I'm just stinky with fear."

There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else's crime.

Well, there are some things to consider.

We've been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn't begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton's assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren't the variable.

Worth noting: One of the first things the "Pilgrims" did when they betrayed the Native Americans, was disarm "King Phillip" and his men.

Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the "Washington Consensus" of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980's? When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then? Fear can make unstable people do desperate things. Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?

Another factor that goes completely unexamined, is the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill emptied our state hospitals onto our streets, and onto families ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes violent mentally ill.

Thank God, the "solution" is so simple…

Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that "once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people", or some such nonsense.

If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go here:

P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three groups I belong to (Hint: It's the one that's growing and actually decides elections):

LaborPartyNow!!!

P S The line, "You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!" is not clever.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.

It's about ARMS!!!

It's about the individual citizen's right to arms, so they'll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around. ‘Well regulated’ at that time, simply meant, ‘efficient.’ In other words, in order for a muster to be efficient, civilians needed to be already armed.

So the "collective rights" argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.

1) As I've mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

2) Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia's. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

3) In what universe do government forces need to have their right to arms protected?

4) Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they're kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?

5) Obviously, "Liberals" are stupid.

Again: #LaborPartyNow!!!

P P S That was ENTIRELY the point of the first fruits of dissent, the 10 Amendments we've come to call the BILL OF RIGHTS (which have become a beacon to aspiring democrats all over the world), to protect INDIVIDUALS from the government they had just created. #TrueStory

[warningsine]

HELSINKI (AP) — A 12-year-old student opened fire at a secondary school in southern Finland on Tuesday morning, killing one and seriously wounding two other students, police said. The suspect was later apprehended.

Heavily armed police cordoned off the Viertola school — a large educational institution including lower and upper secondary schools with a total of about 800 students — in the city of Vantaa, just outside the capital, Helsinki, after receiving a call about a shooting incident at 09:08 a.m.

Police said both the suspect and the victims were 12 years old.

One of the students had died instantly after being shot, Chief of Police Ilkka Koskimäki from the Eastern Uusimaa Police Department told a news conference. The other two were seriously wounded, he said.

The weapon used in the shooting was a registered handgun that was licensed to the suspect’s relative, Detective Inspector Kimmo Hyvärinen said.

The suspect was detained in the Helsinki area less than one hour after the shooting with a handgun in his possession, police said. He admitted to the shooting in an initial police hearing but there is no immediate word of the motive, police said, adding that the case is being investigated as a murder and two attempted murders.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Prime Minister Petteri Orpo offered condolences to the families of the victims in postings on X with both saying they were shocked over the shooting.

“What makes it particularly shocking is the age of the victim and the suspect,” Orpo said during a news conference later Tuesday. “I can assure you that this (shooting) will be carefully reviewed and conclusions will be drawn that this will not happen again.”

The minimum age of criminal liability in Finland is 15 years, which means the suspect cannot be formally arrested. A suspect younger than 15 can only be heard by the police after which they will be handed over to Finland’s child welfare authorities.

In the past decades, Finland has witnessed two major deadly school shootings.

In November 2007, a 18-year-old student armed with a semi-automatic pistol opened fire at the premises of the Jokela high school in Tuusula, southern Finland, killing nine people. He was found dead with self-inflicted wounds.

Less than a year later, in September 2008, a 22-year-old student shot and killed 10 people with a semi-automatic pistol at a vocational college in Kauhajoki, southwestern Finland, before fatally shooting himself.

In the Nordic nation of 5.6 million, there are more than 1.5 million licensed firearms and about 430,000 license holders, according to the Finnish Interior Ministry. Hunting and gun-ownership have long traditions in the sparsely-populated northern European country.

Responsibility for granting permits for ordinary firearms rests with local police departments.

Following the school shootings in 2007 and 2008, Finland tightened its gun laws by raising the minimum age for firearms ownership and giving police greater powers to make background checks on individuals applying for a gun license.

The Interior Ministry said Finland will pay respects to the victims of the school shooting on Wednesday when all state agencies and institutions will lower the national flag to half staff. Private households are encouraged to join in the commemoration, the ministry said.

[mensusaonlinestore1]

IS BACKGROUND CHECK REALLY REQUIRRED AND WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO START WITH IT ?

One cannot deny background check have lot of benefits.

However , it have lot of cons too. It have lot of risks lehally or morally as well.

So, one must have cautioous  while doing background checks.

In some jobs background checks is must necessary thing like the person who will be managing finance , data security things etc and so on.

Why we will need a background check ? May be because of following reasons –

One need to know who the person actually is . Where he actually lives I mean address verfication , his beloging verification  etc and so on. Often people change the city to avoid recognition from fraud. This is pretty important to make sure that you hired the right guy.

Those where extra security required like any position in any business where you will need to manage stockpile of cash positions or manging transactions etc always need special background of candidates who is being hired if he having clean background. If he did not violate any laws or break rules in anywhere. Though background check have limitations within a particular teritory , yet within the teritory it is pretty powerful.

In case of corporate sector , It is very important to check his experience. If your candidate is saying that he have experience of working in some sector , then it is very important to check background while calling the old companies or placements and also their behaviour etc and so on .

But there are lot of restrictions you must obey too in order to do fair background check as well

Make sure that you have candidats authoritty. Once you have interviwed a candidate you asked him/ her that you have permission to do background check of him.

Background check is so really important if you want to hire right people for right work and also want to maintain safety of the people in your office as well as your business and for your campus.

IF YOU NEED TO DO NATIONAL CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK  THEN RELIABLE CHECKS IS HERE WITH YOU TO PROVIDE YOU THAT SERVICES.

If you have any questions regarding our criminal background check companies services or if you have any dispute regarding our sevices, you can contact us through phone call or email whatever you think is best for you.

You can email us at info@reliablechecks.com  as well with your queries, we will help you right away.

There are lot of Nationwide criminal background check companies available who will do background check for you, but reliable checks I would say most bullish.

We look forward to work with you.

This article is written by reliable checks who do background verification for candidates, price starting from $29 . All we just need date of birth and social security numbers and we can do the job for you.

[ukrfeminism]

Thousands of vulnerable women are being left at serious risk of harm because police forces are failing to hand over potentially lifesaving information on violent criminals, The Independent can reveal.

In the latest shameful example of England’s police forces failing to protect women, official data shows that more than half of 20,226 requests for background checks on potential domestic abusers were rejected during a six-month period. 

Campaigners say that victims face a “postcode lottery” in their search for answers, with one expert warning that the sheer scale of rejections is putting women’s lives at risk. 

Senior Tory MP Robert Buckland has called for an urgent independent review of the disclosure scheme, known as Clare’s Law. It is named after 36-year-old Clare Wood, who was murdered in 2009 by her ex-boyfriend George Appleton. Appleton had a history of violence that Wood was unaware of.

As a picture emerges of an inadequate system that has left thousands of women unable to obtain information about their partners, The Independent can report that:

Fifty-six per cent of criminal background requests made under Clare’s Law between October 2021 and March 2022 were denied, according to data from the National Police Chiefs’ Council

Some forces are making women wait months instead of days to learn whether their partner has a history of committing violence against women

The mother of a woman killed by an abusive ex-boyfriend has criticised police for failing her daughter

Hilary Stinchcombe told The Independent that a Clare’s Law disclosure could have saved the lives of her daughter Laura Mortimer, 31, and her 11-year-old granddaughter Ella Dalby.

The pair were stabbed 42 times at their home in Gloucester in May 2018 by Mortimer’s partner (and Ella’s stepfather) Christopher Boon, who had, unbeknown to the family, been given a suspended sentence months before they met for assaulting his previous partner and her mother in front of two children.

Ms Stinchcombe said the family had requested information from police about Boon under Clare’s Law, but the force had denied their application, incorrectly claiming that the request must come directly from the victim. 

“It’s disgusting the police misunderstood the rules and denied us this information,” she said. “If I’d known he had previous convictions, there is no way I would have let him near [Laura’s] children, and I wouldn’t have let him in the house.”

A review into the deaths found that police had failed to take action when Boon attacked Mortimer in 2014, even though he was a known offender. Mortimer initially told officers she had been assaulted by Boon but that she “did not wish to support police action”.

Ms Stinchcombe claims that, after the attack, her daughter went to a police station to request a Clare’s Law disclosure but was turned away. “She was convinced he had previous convictions – somebody had said to her – but none of us knew until the court date,” her mother said. 

The scheme, which is divided into two halves, gives victims and their loved ones the right to ask police about an abuser’s criminal background. The second part gives public bodies the right to request information on individuals they feel pose a risk to women.

A spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) said Clare’s Law applications are rejected because there is no information to reveal about a suspected perpetrator. 

But Sir Robert urged ministers to agree the terms of a review with the NPCC to ensure that legitimate requests are not being dismissed. 

One police force, Wiltshire Police, is reviewing thousands of applications in relation to the failure to disclose information that could have protected people at risk of domestic violence. The review was triggered after concerns were raised about a member of staff. An Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) spokesperson said an independent review is ongoing. 

Sir Robert told The Independent: “I am less than trusting in the system, and want reassurance that those applications have not just been dismissed in a summary way – that they have been considered seriously, even if no disclosure is made.

“I think there should be a review to make sure the processes are being adhered to in a proper way, bearing in mind what happened in Wiltshire.Anything that undermines confidence in the system is going to be bad for people who are doing their best to prevent being the victims of abuse.”

He added: “The whole point of this system was to increase public confidence, and if it’s going the other way, then that is clearly against the objective of the system.”

Labour’s shadow minister for domestic violence said that missed opportunities have already cost too many lives. Alex Davies-Jones said it was very concerning that half of the applications made under the scheme had been rejected, and urged the National Police Chiefs’ Council to work with police forces to make sure a “consistent and rigorous approach is being applied in these cases”.

She said the scheme must “ensure that every opportunity for early protection and prevention is taken when it comes to domestic violence and abuse”, adding: “Missed opportunities cost lives, and far too many have already been lost.”

Domestic abuse commissioner Nicole Jacobs said the law could provide potentially lifesaving information, but that refusing applications means that “opportunities are being missed” to protect victims.

Ellie Butt, of Refuge, a leading domestic abuse charity partnered with The Independent, said there are many holes in the scheme and warned that Clare’s Law can foster a “false sense of security, when vital information is withheld or overlooked”.

Rachel Horman-Brown, a domestic abuse solicitor, said failures to disclose information under Clare’s Law can put women’s lives at risk. Some women she supports are given disclosures under Clare’s Law, but a lot see their applications rejected, she said.

“Sometimes they are told, ‘You have separated from him; you don’t need to know,’ but separations in the context of domestic abuse are often not linear. Victims will often go back to their perpetrators,” she added.

“This is because the perpetrators are so manipulative, and victims feel controlled and scared. A lot of victims are a lot less likely to go back if they know of the history of abuse. That excuse of refusing information by the police doesn’t stack up.”

Dr Charlotte Barlow, who specialises in Clare’s Law and domestic abuse, said Clare’s Law is a “postcode lottery”, with some areas investing far more money in the scheme than others.

The academic said domestic abuse victims she encounters sometimes wait months to be given a disclosure about a partner – adding that one woman was forced to wait five months despite ringing the police multiple times.

Recommended wait times for disclosure are 28 days, but Dr Barlow warned that this is too long.

Louisa Rolfe, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and domestic abuse lead for the NPCC, said: “Police aim to consult relevant safeguarding agencies before disclosing, and, where a victim discloses potential abuse during the process but no records are held, police look to take steps, with other relevant agencies, to protect them.”

A spokesperson for Gloucester Police said the review into the deaths of Mortimer and Ella states that the force’s policy for Clare’s Law previously permitted disclosure of prior convictions only to the individual in the relationship.

“However, since the introduction of statutory government guidance in 2022, the constabulary will now consider disclosure to another person in particular circumstances,” they added.

The national domestic abuse helpline offers support for women on 0808 2000 247, or you can visit the Refuge website. There is a dedicated men’s advice line on 0808 8010 327. 

[naturalrights-retard]

The US government simply hates its citizens at this point and deliberately wants the nation to live in fear. The same people who persistently vote to prohibit American citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms have ruled that illegal migrants may carry firearms. A US District Court judge became one of the first to rule that the US Constitution protects undocumented illegals rather than legal citizens.

District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, appointed by former President Obama in 2010, has a long history of siding with criminals over law-abiding citizens. She, like many other judges, has been installed to ensure civil unrest will continue. Americans must go through a background check process to obtain a firearm and are restricted from carrying based on individual state laws. Undocumented migrants have no paper trail or background to check.

Coleman based her decision New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in which an illegal migrant was charged for illegally possessing a semi-automatic pistol. His case was dismissed twice before it was presented to Coleman, who deemed his actions acceptable. Title 18 of U.S. Criminal Code strictly forbids illegal immigrants from possessing firearms on US soil.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

President Joe Biden on Saturday signed into law the first major federal gun safety legislation passed in decades, marking a significant bipartisan breakthrough on one of the most contentious policy issues in Washington.

"God willing, it's going to save a lot of lives," Biden said at the White House as he finished signing the bill.

The legislation came together in the aftermath of recent mass shootings at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school and a Buffalo, New York, supermarket that was in a predominantly Black neighborhood. A bipartisan group of negotiators set to work in the Senate and unveiled legislative text on Tuesday. The bill -- titled the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act -- was released by Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

The House on Friday passed the bill by 234-193, including 14 Republicans voting with Democrats. The Senate passed the bill in a late-night vote Thursday.

In his remarks Saturday, the President announced he'd host members of Congress who supported the landmark gun safety legislation at a White House event on July 11, following his return from Europe, to celebrate the new law with the families of gun violence victims.

The package represents the most significant new federal legislation to address gun violence since the expired 10-year assault weapons ban of 1994 -- though it fails to ban any weapons and falls far short of what Biden and his party had advocated for, and polls show most Americans want to see.

"While this bill doesn't do everything I want, it does include actions I've long called for that are going to save lives," Biden said. "Today, we say more than 'enough.' We say more than enough. This time, when it seems impossible to get anything done in Washington, we are doing something consequential."

Biden added, "If we can reach compromise on guns, we ought to be able to reach a compromise on other critical issues, from veterans' health care to cutting edge American innovation and so much more. I know there's much more work to do, and I'm never going to give up, but this is a monumental day."

It includes $750 million to help states implement and run crisis intervention programs. The money can be used to implement and manage red flag programs -- which through court orders can temporarily prevent individuals in crisis from accessing firearms -- and for other crisis intervention programs like mental health courts, drug courts and veterans courts.

This bill closes a years-old loophole in domestic violence law -- the "boyfriend loophole" -- which barred individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes against spouses, partners with whom they shared children or partners with whom they cohabitated from having guns. Old statutes didn't include intimate partners who may not live together, be married or share children.

Now the law will bar from having a gun anyone who is convicted of a domestic violence crime against someone they have a "continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature." The law isn't retroactive. It will, however, allow those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes to restore their gun rights after five years if they haven't committed other crimes.

The bill encourages states to include juvenile records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with grants as well as implements a new protocol for checking those records.

The bill goes after individuals who sell guns as primary sources of income but have previously evaded registering as federally licensed firearms dealers. It also increases funding for mental health programs and school security.

Just before signing the bill, Biden praised the families of gun violence victims with whom he had met. He said their activism in the face of loss was a difference-maker.

"I especially want to thank the families that Jill and I have (met), many of whom we sat with for hours on end, across the country. There's so many we've gotten to know who've lost their soul to an epidemic of gun violence. They've lost their child, their husband, their wife," Biden said.

"Nothing is going to fill that void in their hearts. But they led the way so other families will not have the experience and the pain and trauma they've had to live through."

[odinsblog]

🗣️AMERICA HAS A SERIOUS GUN PROBLEM

Robert Card, an Army reservist with a history of mental health issues, is suspected of killing at least 18 people at multiple locations in Maine on Wednesday.

Hours before the rampage, the Senate voted 53-45 to adopt an amendment making it easier for veterans with mental disabilities to get guns. The Department of Veteran Affairs is currently required to send the names of veterans who need assistance managing their benefits to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The amendment adopted on Wednesday, introduced by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), overturns this requirement. “My amendment would prevent government workers from unduly stripping veterans of their right to bear arms,” Kennedy said. “Every veteran who bravely serves our country has earned VA benefits, and it's wrong for the government to punish veterans who get a helping hand to manage those resources.”

Five senators who caucus with Democrats - three Democrats and two Independents, all up for reelection in 2024 - voted with Republicans to adopt the amendment.

(continue reading)

[beardedmrbean]

The man who killed five people at a Louisville, Kentucky, bank in April was motivated by his outrage over the nation’s gun laws, which he considered lax and hoped a bloody rampage of white victims would spur politicians into action, according to a police report released Tuesday that contained excerpts from the killer’s journal.

Connor Sturgeon, 25, gunned down co-workers inside a conference room at Old National Bank on East Main Street on April 10 after he admitted in his journal that he was suffering from mental health issues, was dissatisfied with his job and the direction his life was taking.

Eight others were injured during the shooting, including a responding officer who was struck in the head and critically wounded. Sturgeon fired more than 40 rounds in about eight minutes, according to the report.

"I have decided to make an impact. These people did not deserve to die, but because I was depressed and able to buy [guns], they are gone," Sturgeon wrote in his journal on April 4, according to the report released by the Louisville Police Department.

"Perhaps this is the impact for change – upper class white people dying. I certainly would not have been able to do this were it more difficult to get a gun."

The April 4 journal entry was the same day he purchased an AR-15 rifle for $500 used in the deadly shooting six days later, according to a receipt in the police report. He also bought 120 rounds and four rifle magazines in a process that took about 45 minutes, he said.

Sturgeon noted his surprise at how straightforward it was for him to purchase the weapon, given his mental health struggles.

"OH MY GO THIS IS SO EASY," he wrote in bold. "I knew it would be doable but this is ridiculous."

He went on to ridicule lawmakers, writing how he wanted his actions to galvanize them.

"I know our politicians are solely focused on lining their own pockets, but maybe this will knock some sense into them. If not, good luck."

Sturgeon wrote that "Democrats get rich [by] doing nothing in the name of civility" while they allow Republicans to "do whatever they want to whoever they want."

"A level of corruption that stands directly between us and progress," he wrote.

The report also reveals that investigators found a plan stored in a Notes app in which he wrote, "They won’t listen to words or protests, so let’s see if they hear this."

Sturgeon appeared to reserve his harshest criticism for the National Rifle Association.

"But let us not forget the most important player here," he wrote on April 9. "The one who made all this possible. [Let's] give it up for the NRA!!"

"I couldn’t have done this without all of your lobbying dollars! You really brought this whole thing together. This is the world you are building. One without any regard for the value of human life."

In Kentucky, Sturgeon faced no barriers to entry as a gun owner since he had no prior criminal record, which means he would have passed the federally required background check, according to the Washington Post.

The state does not have a "red flag" law, a measure to prevent people who are reported to be potentially dangerous from buying and possessing guns.

Nevertheless, such a law may not have prevented Sturgeon from buying the weapon because his mental health struggles had not been reported to authorities.

Sturgeon’s family has said they intend to sue the maker of the rifle used in the attack.

The report also contained a picture of Sturgeon taking a selfie on April 5 that showed him making a "joker face," which authorities say is a trend popular on social media.

Authorities say they have closed the investigation into Sturgeon’s actions.

He was shot dead by police later that day, and investigators determined that the actions of the officer who shot Sturgeon were not criminal.

The five employees killed were Joshua Barrick, 40, a senior vice president; Deana Eckert, 57, an executive administrative officer; Thomas Elliott, 63, also a senior vice president; Juliana Farmer, 45, a loan analyst; and Jim Tutt Jr., 64, a commercial real estate market executive. Elliott was a close personal friend of Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. Of the five victims, only Farmer was black.