Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
So, lets say I am in Texas.
Again, you are ignoring that I previously stated that in Texas, they have to show both that you possessed such tools, *and* that you had intent. I agree that in Texas, they have the burden to prove intent. I have in fact now stated twice before that this is the case - this paragraph is the third time I have made that statement.
If mere possession of the tools to commit a crime was really reasonable to convict a person of a crime, every person with a "piece of male anatomy" would be convicted of intent to commit rape.
Well, first, please find a state that has a law stating that mere possession of a piece of male anatomy is prima facie evidence of intent to commit rape - because it's not a valid comparison without having such a law on the books somewhere. (I would expect such a law to be challenged and thrown out quickly, for obvious reasons. Edit: Maybe not so obvious to you. A court would throw it out because it is fairly easy to show that while all men (except those who have lost it through injury, etc) possess such anatomy, not all men are likely to commit rape. This is a much harder argument to make for lock picks, as not many people own them to begin with, and they are made specifically to open locks without a key).
Second, I am not alleging that it is reasonable. I am not alleging that the police or prosecutors will always bring charges, either. I am, in fact, not even alleging that there will automatically be a conviction in such a case, as the defendant will still get a chance to show they did not have such intent - there's just a much lower bar the prosecution has to hurdle to get the conviction.
I am saying that if you live in a state that declares that some condition is prima facie
evidence of a crime, if you meet that that condition, it will not be on the state to show that you committed the crime - it will be on you to show you didn't.
Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it is reasonable is irrelevant - it's how the law works.