Ummm, are the people who served the warrant not government officials?
You can show that he was arrested,
The article does not say either way, but it is highly likely he was.
If he wasn't, that just proves even more how wrong the cops were and that they should have done their due diligence BEFORE busting down his door and holding him at gun point.
I don't know about you but if someone held me at gun point for some flimsy reason, I would be highly pissed off....and I'm sure you would be to.
The whole argument here has been that the cops acted out of line, you're defending it and yet you just inadvertently proved yourself wrong by saying he wasn't arrested.
Good going.
I'm sorry you don't understand the very bright distinction between "investigation" and "accusation". But, I'm not surprised.
"but it is highly likely he was."
It's likely (in your mind) that he was, because....
You have offered no evidence or support about why the man was arrested, other than "the story doesn't say he wasn't". Not very compelling. The story doesn't also say that the man was shot and his dog was killed, are we then to presume that he indeed was shot and his dog was killed specifically because the story doesn't say it? I'm just curious, because this seems to be the logic you enjoy employing.
"If he wasn't, that just proves even more how wrong the cops were and that they should have done their due diligence BEFORE busting down his door and holding him at gun point."
Their due diligence was perfect. An internet connection that he owned was the medium for transfer of legally prohibited images. Their probable cause was CLEARLY accurate.
"I don't know about you but if someone held me at gun point for some flimsy reason, I would be highly pissed off....and I'm sure you would be to."
There's nothing "flimsy" about the dissemination and consumption of child porn. It's shocking you don't understand that.
"The whole argument here has been that the cops acted out of line, you're defending it and yet you just inadvertently proved yourself wrong by saying he wasn't arrested."
No, they in fact were proven right. They have indicted someone who downloaded internet porn using a connection in a home that was searched. Their investigation and search wasn't only warranted, it was quite clearly fruitful.
The most likely explanation for the facts they knew was that the guy had porn on his computer. They needed to take possession of the computers and search them to verify that there was no porn on them, which led them to seek out other sources.
Note that your argument would apply to the guy who was found guilty as well. After all, while they found his computer had hooked into this guy’s router, that didn’t mean he had porn on his computer either.
Maybe I’m more accepting of this because I’ve watched too much TV. Every cop show includes police running down bad leads, questioning people who turn out not to be the criminals, and even sometimes putting them in jail before finding that their alibi checks out.
I guess in the real world police are supposed to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before they start to ask questions or look for evidence.