[robertpaulsen]

"do you consider it Constitutional for the government to hold property of someone who has been found not guilty in a court of law to all criminal charges against him?"

Sure. If I knowingly (I would deny this, obviously) rent a building to someone who is using it to manufacture meth, I would expect it to be seized, even though I wasn't involved in the drug making.

What? You disagree? I keep the building? Can I keep all the innocent looking chemicals, too? They're harmless (unless combined).

One guy sits in the getaway car. The cops arrest the bad guys in the bank. The driver of the car gets off?

A man is shot and killed by three guys. One bullet, one gun. Just one arrest? The other two go free?

How many examples do you want?

[ellery]

All of this is beside the point, because this man was found not guilty. It doesn't matter whether or not you think he was actually guilty -- the court system is what we have to decide these things, per the Constitution. I'm not discussing whether or not the jury made a mistake in finding him not guilty -- because I don't have enough information from this article to have an opinion. What I'm arguing is that once someone is found guilty in a court of law, they cannot be punished for that crime as if they were guilty. Are you arguing otherwise?

[coloradan]

If I knowingly (I would deny this, obviously) rent a building to someone who is using it to manufacture meth, I would expect it to be seized, even though I wasn't involved in the drug making.

Conspiracy to manufacture meth. Crime. Accessory to said manufacture. Crime.

One guy sits in the getaway car. The cops arrest the bad guys in the bank. The driver of the car gets off?

Accessory to bank robbery, crime. Conspiracy to rob a bank. Crime. Failure to report a felony. Crime.

The man in this article has been found innocent of all criminal charges again him.

Shall the state continue to keep his property?