Who's going to run a tor exit node if that's the legal precedent?

It's also pointless. While it's possible for a CP collector or distributor to run an exit node as cover, why would they when they can just use tor for real for all their CP dealings?

Think of the ultimate consequences. Such a legal precedent would have CP and other criminal activity causing more collateral damage rather than less. If all it takes to get most tor exit node operators to shut them down is engaging in illegal activities that will draw the attention of the authorities, then I can imagine a lot of countries' intelligence and military services would have an interest in engaging in criminal activities using U.S. tor exit nodes to reduce the available pool of tor exit nodes.

The IP address presumably actually belongs to the exit node operator's ISP. By this logic they should be raiding them instead.

> There's no way for law enforcement to know he didn't make those connections until they investigate

There's no way for law enforcement to know that you didn't make those connections until they investigate. That shouldn't be justification for raiding you, should it?

> If you're going to run a TOR exit node, which you are absolutely free to do, you have to expect this to happen from time to time and be prepared to explain why you are not responsible for the traffic you appear to have originated.

They already knew it was an exit node.

> If standing on principle was free, it would be unremarkable.

That is a very poor justification for unnecessarily making it more expensive.