Poll of the Day > Charges DROPPED on TEACHER who had SEX with KID cause they're MARRIED! She Hot?

(+) Yeah! (+)

26 y/o Bailey A. Turner, the former Missouri High School Teacher arrested for having SEX with an underage student had her charges DROPPED by the prosecutors after she MARRIED the male student!!

In February 2019, she taught at Sarcoxie High School and was charged with having sexual contact with a male student.

Then 23, she was a first year high school english teacher when she was accused of having intercourse and oral sex with the teen leading to her resignation

They both admitted to having sex at her home and said it was both consensual

Prosecutor, Nate Dally said the charge is dropped because she now married the 20 y/o and even have a BABY together!!

But because she married him he now has marital and spousal privilege and he can no longer be compelled to testify against his wife and he refuses to.

Missouri state law prohibits students and school employees and volunteers or officials with sexual contact with a student regardless of consent or age

She was facing 4 years in the big house and was ordered not to have contact with anyone younger than 16..

She has since surrendered her teaching license and is no longer allowed to teach

Her unnamed husband says he is happy to be married to her after having his first child and has enlisted in the United States Military

Is Bailey Hot?

https://i.imgur.com/kyhUPhS.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/dOjSFPm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GpqNEUJ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cOcbjH4.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0M2RZ2H.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jWsxlIZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/DJ4egTt.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/YWbtCh1.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/RHQmQhf.jpg

Who approved a marriage license between her and the victim of the crime she was being charged with?

adjl posted...

Who approved a marriage license between her and the victim of the crime she was being charged with?

No one would have to because he is 20 now.

I mean, mixed feelings? If nothing else, this is exactly why teachers barely older than their students should be put in schools. Beyond that, she did something wrong (especially the abuse of authority) and isn't just avoiding punishment, but is benefiting from it. Yet at the same time there's no way to punish her without hurting the primary wronged party.

jbomb1234 posted...

No one would have to because he is 20 now.

This, pretty much.

AOC laws in general lead to weird situations.

jbomb1234 posted...

No one would have to because he is 20 now.

Somebody has to approve every marriage license, and I feel like this is very much a case where it could be said that one party was not competent enough to enter the contract. Granted, dude was 17 and it would all be perfectly fine if they'd waited a year (which means they should really probably have just waited a year), so it's not like he's been manipulated from a really vulnerable age into a relationship, but that still seems questionable to me.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/5/5/AACE4xAACnqj.jpg

Hes 20, but they still blurred out his face I understand blurring the baby (even though many look like almost the same in many cases)

LinkPizza posted...

Hes 20, but they still blurred out his face I understand blurring the baby (even though many look like almost the same in many cases)

Standard protocol for victims of sex crimes that were committed when they were minors. It's also why he isn't named. Around here, there was a particularly notorious case a decade ago where a 17-year-old girl was raped while drunk at a party, bullied horrifically after a video of the incident was circulated throughout her school, and ended up committing suicide. Her name was published pretty broadly during the campaign to have the incident properly investigated (spearheaded by her parents, who chose to publish it), but once charges were actually laid against her rapists, a publication ban came into effect and her name was no longer allowed to be said in the media, resulting in a whole lot of "a 17-year-old girl that we're not allowed to name but you all know who she is" sort of euphemisms.

It was very silly, with her parents objecting very strongly to the decision not to publish her name, and the judge presiding over the case (who's actually a member of my church) ultimately chose to blatantly ignore the ban in any public discussions of it because he felt the need to make a statement about how stupid and arbitrary it was in this particular case. Officially, I believe her name is still barred from being published, but I don't think any actual penalties have been levied against anyone violating that ban because of the pretty sizable movement to call it out for being stupid.