@hawkeye10,
You started this thread with the assumption that this was another innocent man being victimized by the government for some innocuous sexually-related behavior, and you were mounting your soapbox to deliver your usual anti-government diatribe. Well, it doesn't sound like this man was doing anything innocuous--he appears to have been viewing child pornography on his laptop, in a public place, where his behavior was observed and authorities were notified. And his computer was then examined by law enforcement who agreed that the computer contained images of child pornography. So, you really made a fool of yourself by starting this thread, because it backfired on your intentions, and now you are just trying to save face.
Quote:I note that some reports claim that he was looking at pics of girls only, we dont even have established that any girl on girl action of any type happened.
Quote:
Anyone who demands to know the exact nature of the evidence against a allege child pornographer before claiming that he is a bad guy must be a sicko who likes to watch child porn
You are already fantasizing about the sort of material he watched--i.e. was it "girl on girl" or only pictures of naked 8 year olds in some sort of pose? You are indeed a sicko.
What do you want the state to do, show you the child porn?
Whatever material was on his laptop that constituted the reason for his arrest will be presented at trial and shown to a jury. It has already been viewed by the police and D.A..It is rather presumptuous of you to demand that you have to personally view the porn, or be given a highly graphic and detailed lurid description, before deciding whether the man has been appropriately charged. Your interest in this seems clearly prurient.