First post... I don't know law enforcement. This seems weird to me. The felonies appear to be about a single video that he possessed and offered to someone.

The warrant was about photos he downloaded but they are not part of the charges.

So the police knew he had visited a site perhaps set up by them or taken over by them or how would they know he visited?

What I'm wondering is how easy would it be to set someone up. Can photos be hidden on a home page so visiting the page automatically downloads the child porn onto your temp file. Now the police can pick and choose who they want to harass with warrants. In this case they might be trying to destroy the mayor or his son or get a two-fer.

This guy had a single video that offended the officers. Not an overflowing database. He might have many many photos but not offending enough to charge him with. Don't the cops try to throw the book at you? Do they hold back charges and add them in later even if the photos were found on his PC at the same time as the video?

I'm not commenting on this guy's guilt or innocence, I'm thinking of you researchers who are going onto all kinds of crazy sites I won't go. Isn't every page you visit a download? They are all preserved on a temp file, right?

I wish I knew more so I knew how to think about it. This story is not like others I've cheered for. People had tons of shit. The story doesn't make me feel safer. It made me wonder how easy it would be for the cops to entrap someone.

Here is an excerpt from the story above ...

Nelson, 62, was charged with one felony count each of promoting a sexual performance by a child and possessing a sexual performance by a child.

Nelson was taken into custody by investigators with State Police and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The investigation began after members of the State Police Computer Crimes Unit became aware that an IP address located in Stillwater had downloaded photographs depicting child pornography, according to a news release.