One Westporter made national news this week.
Another reported it.
Estelle Margolis earlier this winter. Every Saturday, she is part of an anti-war vigil on the Post Road bridge.
The New York Times took note of Estelle Margolis’ not guilty plea to a breach of peace charge. The 86-year-old longtime peace activist brought a BB gun, pellets and a box of .45-caliber ammunition to an RTM meeting this month. The town body was debating gun control.
The Times said:
The episode has generated debate on local news Web sites, where the headlines usually tell of shoplifters and charity drives, and between friends who said she had meant no harm and others who acknowledged her respected place in town but maintained that her protest could have ended with someone hurt.
The paper also reported on her open letter:
I need to apologize to everyone in Westport for my ill-conceived attempt to bring attention to the pressing need for serious gun and ammunition control. I deeply regret the fact that what I did was dangerous and created a great deal of anxiety for everyone and especially the young police officers at the meeting.
In the same letter, it added, “she called for curbs on guns and ammunition and for better mental health care, and criticized the National Rifle Association as holding too much sway.”
Meanwhile, Staples graduate and current ESPN reporter Jeremy Schaap snagged Manti Te’o for an exclusive 2-hour, off-camera interview.
Manti Te’o and Jeremy Schaap.
On ESPN’s website, Schaap dug into the beyond-bizarre story about a Notre Dame Heisman Trophy candidate football player’s lengthy romance with an automobile accident victim and dead Stanford student who was not hit by a drunk driver, did not have leukemia, did not go to Stanford — okay, technically, she did not exist — and heard Te’0 deny any involvement in the “hoax.”
According to Deadspin — which broke the head-spinning story — Te’o’s “apparent defense is that he had no reason to think his twice-undead dead long-distance girlfriend, whom he never met or saw outside of photographs, whose funeral he never thought to attend, might have been a phony.”
Given the number of witnesses and that she publicly confessed, it’s “shocking” that she pleaded “not guilty” wasting a whole lot of time and money. I suppose she is hoping that the fact that she is 86 years old and “meant well” not to mention her street cred from disrupting traffic on the Post Road and being the husband of the late Emanuel Margolis, champion of civil rights, will get her special treatment compared to some unknown random wack job that might have pulled the same stunt.
Let’s see – equal protection under the law (the heart of civil rights that her husband so championed) versus special treatment for Estelle. Or just a bit more self glorifying publicity seeking. Delicious.
A story of two frauds.
Jerry, Very nicely written and true…… It will be interesting to see what happens.
Shame on charging someone who used bad judgement for a good cause.
This reminds me of that great Seinfeld episode when Jerry’s uncle Leo got caught shoplifting at the book store: “You can’t do this to me!!!! I’m an old man!!!!” Jerry turned him in anyway. Good thing we have good cops in Westport. Anyplace else she could have had her sweet little old head blown off.
it would not be so bad if she left her statements at that she had made a horrible mistake and errror in judgement, and would of course take the consequences as anyone should. i had a great aunt who thought her brother in law could get her out of anything and to teach her a lesson – during prohibition – had the police come to her apartment. she tried to throw them out telling them who she was related to. by the end of the night – as the story was told every summer – she had them raiding his clubhouse. in the end, lesson learned, everyone had a good time and she stopped throwing her name out there.
Shame on Estelle for trying to use her name to sway a judge to let her get away with breaking the law.
Shame? There is shame on the police? That’s what you took away from this article? This town is unbelievable.
It’s her due process – and she is entitled to all of it. (I think that’s covered in some of the other 9 amendments).
This is when I cannot stand the town I have lived in for many years, now. When people ignore the facts and look to the “heart” of the matter.
I’m ashamed of our town and the residents, like Rozanne Gates spouting her mouth off on WestportNow, who choose to overlook the law because it is Estelle Margolis. OF COURSE, we must not pursue appropriate action because it’s Estelle and her husband was Manny Margolis. What am I thinking?
Look, I don’t care who it is. Anyone who has the inability to understand the seriousness of this — or what could have happened — deserves to be publicly scolded and, if appropriate, punished. I am amazed that Estelle Margolis, the longtime wife of a LAWYER (ironic), did not have the sense to at least give warning to cops or the public officials.
You cannot just walk into Town Hall with a gun. It is times like this I am reminded of those zealots, on both sides, who disregard any common sense just to have a bigger impact or prove a point. You’re actually doing a disservice to your cause by acting that way. Estelle might be 86 years-old, but she acted like an 8 year-old on this particular evening and deserves whatever the Judge sees fit.
You’d think a town like Westport possessed smarter residents. Am I being too optimistic about the town I love, and love to live in?
Frank,
If you never say anything else on this board or no matter what you may say, I will respect you for this post.
Appreciate it, Sank.
I have never interacted with Estelle. I am sure she is a lovely person, but I am just sick and tired of the foolishness and hypocrisy displayed by our neighbors and community members.
Enough is enough. Ruffle feathers, if we have to. But people need to understand the law of the land and legal difference of right vs. wrong. Can you imagine if this happened in Bridgeport? We would be crying for the mindless fool to get thrown in jail but because it’s Manny’s wife and she is 86 years-old, and in Westport, we are supposed to look away.
Sorry but she needs to take more ownership and self-responsibility for this. It’s so absurd, Sank. There is nothing else to say
Rozanne Gates also spent a lot of effort defending Ina Chadwick when she was arrested for DUI. Same story… she was a little old lady, she meant no harm, the police overacted, you don’t know her, blah, blah,…
Ms. Gates should provide the police with a picture book of all her friends. Whenever someone acts in an errant way, the police should first check Rozanne’s book before taking any further action. 😉
There is a pattern of entitlement that Frank notes. Ina’s defense of herself and attack against the police, spinning it up as some sort of class warfare between “working class” cops and whatever exalted class she deemed herself to be. It was amusing she had no follow up apology on the soap boxes she used to proclaim her innocence (that I could find, anyway) when it turned out she was over the legal limit.
For the only response I could find, she was still putting a spin on it. Shame on Ina as well.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/facing-my-fathers-demons/
I don’t know Ina. I read the article and my guess is getting busted for the first time in her life gave her something decent to write about that she could use the first person.
That’s a wonderful idea because I only know wonderful people. You should only hope to be a wonderful person so I can defend you when you get in trouble.
And we should trust your judgement because…?
You said it. If people of the moral caliber of Mrs. Margolis can’t control themselves we’ve really got to look at what our society has become.
Exactly. Yes, exactly. That sums it all up perfectly.
She should be banned from Town Hall. What she did wasn’t stupid at all- aren’t we talking about her? Wasn’t that the idea? Stupid like a fox. What she did was, however, incredibly insensitive, arrogant and selfish. I guess there is no age limit on being an attention whore.
Three weeks after Newtown she pulls this and some rookie cop shoots her because he assumed that since the ammo was .45 cal that the gun in the bag was .45 cal too and not a BB gun. Oswald carried his weapon to the scene of the crime in a paper sack. I’ll say it for the last time: She’s lucky she didn’t get her head blown off. Manny is just going to have to wait for the reunion (maybe that was his plan, I dunno)
This lady is an absolute idiot.
No, she’s an incredibly articulate well-educated socially conscious limousine liberal who doesn’t know that the 60’s was 40 years ago, that Vietnam is over, there’s a black family in the WH and despite how far we’ve come thanks to her efforts there are serious creeps walking around with guns in nice towns like Westport..
The little boys club here throwing ice at little old ladies. Nice. Brave too since all anon.
Andy, if I told you who I was you wouldn’t know me so what’s the point? You agree with what she did? Why or why not? I’m glad she’s safe and I hope the judge dismisses the case. That work for you?
OK with me. Why all the negative vibes?
Andy, I thought your boys club remark was kind of cheap. You may disagree with me but i wasn’t playing any male angle. I believe Ms. Margolis is very sincere and I have always held her in high regard based on her willingness and her late husband’s to take up causes but what she did was crazy and dangerous especially so close to Newtown. In addition, it was all unnecessary she didn’t need to bring risky gun props to the meeting she is universally respected she would’ve had the floor just by showing up. Does that make my position more clear? I’m a ladies man, I’d never shoot low on a woman.
Why is her age relevant? She evidently broke the law. Why should she get a pass?
Its no excuse but maybe the old retired fire horse couldn’t resist one last fire. I think the issue is being well addressed its not like people even gun freaks like me aren’t scared shitless since Newtown. I don’t know how anybody can say we shouldn’t do something to stop the madness.
So, I’m anonymous now? How does that work? Andy, you are one of those fools shooting their mouth off at WestportNow because you know Estelle and feel a sense of entitlement being a Westport lackey.
Next time, why don’t you be a little more sensical and mindful? Consider the possibility that those who did not know Estelle thought she was a serious threat. I am tired of all this double-standard hypocrisy.
Frank. Are you real? I don’t know because I can’t find you anywhere in the WPdirectories. But I can find myself. How about you?
you actually look people up in the westport directory? that a person who disagrees with other’s opinions would look up their home addresses is a reason why people should remain anonymous.
So the moment you are corrected, you go to baseless accusations. I’m glad your true colors are showing, Mr. Yemma.
I’m as real as the stick up your butt, sir. Which makes me very real. I’m thankful you cannot find me in the directory. It proves that your system is not perfect and some people can maintain their privacy without being shy about their opinions.
really nice sir. You are a class act and a poseur.
I’m not taking sides but “I’m as real as the stick up your butt” is pure poetry.
Copied from WestportNow:
Should we fear an 86-year-old woman? How about an 88-year-old man?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31208188/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/guard-dies-after-holocaust-museum-shooting/#.UO82CKyb028
No comparison in terms of intent, but certain a reasonable cause for concern when the person is not known to law enforcement officers and the matter under discussion is firearms
I think we need more fear. It seems to be good for business.
Yep. Certainly seems like what Estelle had in mind. Oops, that’s not what you meant.
Sounds like Estelle is related to David Gregory, the news commentator. He brought a 30 round clip into a TV studio after the Washington police told NBC that it was illegal. But he’s better and smarter than the rest of us so he got a pass. Another entitled fool !!
I’m glad everyone has already tried and convicted her. I guess due process is just an inconvenient anachronism when the tar and feathers come out.
You sound like those idiots on WestportNow who would probably only care about this if it was a young, black man from Bridgeport. Because then you wouldn’t “know” him or his intentions.
Ms. Margolis has not been convicted of anything. She is entitled to her day in court. Our justice system may not be perfect (far from it), but it is the only we got. I am not sure what your point about “young, black man from Bridgeport” has to do with that sentiment. Perhaps you can elaborate.
C. Darrow — have you been following the story? She already admitted to this and took ownership, and in the press no less. The fact that she entered a Not Guilty plea in order to delay the inevitable, after publicly admitting her misjudgment, is a downright shame.
She is a defendant in a criminal proceeding. How she decides to proceed is between her and her lawyer. It’s a pretty simple concept. To question her judgment at Town Hall that night is certainly fair game; to question her decision to plead not guilty in a preliminary hearing – and affirm her constitutional right to due process – is petty, mean-spirited, and downright un-American. Inherit the wind, brother!
Adam Lanza was never convicted of anything either. Should we assume he did not commit a crime? Margolis admitted to a criminal act. Whether she is found guilty or not in court is an entirely different issue.
Let her be. She apologized, she said she did a stupid thing. I think she has learned her lesson. Dismiss the case (which I hope the prosecutors will ask) and let’s move on to more important matters.
Okay. If some hoodlum from Bridgeport ever happens to be at a Town Hall meeting, with a BB Gun, I will remember this. You better let him off the hook, too!!! Let’s not limit it just to 86 year-old liberal white women, okay?
What about hoodlums from Westport? Is that OK?
Absolutely dismiss the case. I bet she’ll never do THAT again.
Isn’t Ms. Margolis seeking justice by showing up the system that we created, as warped as it may be. She doesn’t think that the law applies to her. And she has been acting this way for a very long time. The entire purpose of her enterprise is acknowledgement of her psychosis. She is a megalomaniac. Do you think that any police official would have asked her for a receipt to see if she had a BB gun when she pulled it out from under the blanket it was wrapped in?
If she was an honorable person she would plead guilty and do the time. She may have set back the gun control movement 20 years with her move and her attempts to get off. She really doesn’t “believe” in anything but the support of her narcissistic behavior.
Thanks Jerry. I totally forgot about Ina Chadwick and ridiculous justification of drinking and driving. I always wondered what her test results came back as.
Do you realize that by just rearranging a few syllables Ina Chadwick becomes Ina Wackedchick? i guess that’s what happens when Ina only has one.
Seriously? Aren’t you all being a bit hysterical? She obviously is not a threat. It’s ridiculous to compare her to a “hoodlum’ from Bridgeport. Get a grip people.
No one considers her a threat, now. But to walk into a public meeting on gun violence with a gun and ammo just to make a point within weeks of a local shooting massacre and wonder why people are hysterical makes her a fool and you Really are one too.
Why is it ridiculous? Jim has a point. If this were not an older white woman, would the nonchalant shrugging of shoulders be so widespread among my Westport neighbors?
Sometimes reading comments on this blog is like turning over a rock.
I take you know Estelle and think she is being unfairly treated here? Well, I knew Richard Nixon, he actually meant well. Ollie North? Ditto. Oh, wait, you mean the old “ends justifies the means” only applies to people YOU personally know. Got it. Thanks for the hypocrisy.
No. I do not know her. I do not think anything except that the anonymous words and arguments in this thread are cowardly and sub-reptilian. Also Raymond Burr was a courageous, generous, and discretely honorable person, and your choosing his most famous role as a pseudonym seems psychoanalytically interesting.
Who is anonymous? I’d gladly stand before the town and state these very same feelings.
Also, your characterizations of the comments are laughable and asinine. I think you are projecting the “sub-reptilian” tone. You should know better than that, as an English teacher in our town’s school system.
What is this deep-seated hate you have for reptiles? What was it like knowing Raymond Burr first-hand? Were you his lover? There’s a book in your future!!!!
She’s a liberal! She’ll get off!
If she had been a tea-party conservative, the rifle would have been real and bullet would have been firing
The tea party scares me as much as the next sane-minded person, but this comment is incredibly offensive and has no place on Dan’s blog. I guess it should be expected of an anonymous troll.
I was deliberately offensive because I wanted to make a sharp rejoinder to the person who commented about her being a liberal. Truth be, tea-party folk are a lot scarier than liberals.
She is not a liberal, she is a leftist.
Tea-party folk are also scarier than leftists
Really; Stalin was a leftist. You had no problem with him did you.
I don’t think that this woman needs to be flogged in public or thrown in prison but she should be punished for her actions. A small fine or a short probation period would probably be fine. I’ve known the judge in this case for most of my life (for good reasons!) so I’m sure he’ll give her a fair punishment.
I am having a problem with this blog- too many posts from the same folk over and over again! The blog gets hijacked!
A few questions-
1- Is it perfectly legal to go to Walmart and buy a BB gun, pellets and real bullets without any background check or providing any identification?
2-If you can’t take that legal purchased gun, pellets and bullets into town hall without being arrested- why purchase one?
3- Would you be arrested for walking into a school, a hospital, a barber shop, a beauty parlor, a supermarket or a doctor’s office with a legally purchased gun, pellets and bullets?
4- Where can you legally go with that legally purchased gun, pellets and bullets- if not to a rifle range, the Olympics, or to a war?
5- Why would anyone want to go to any civilized place armed with a gun?
To shoot someone you get into an argument with- possibly over a parking spot?
6- Does it matter to anyone how uncomfortable it makes most people feel to be around anyone- family, friend or foe – who is armed with a gun?
7- Does it matter the intent of a respected, peaceful woman was to attempt to make a public statement that we have to do something to make sure guns are only sold after some form of identity check and registration is done?
8- Do any of the 56 commentators have any suggestions as to the punishment that would fit the crime- a fine, public service, time in jail?
Hmmm- no answers- I guess maybe it is enough that she has issued a public apology and will -according to the rules of our system of justice – have to stand before a duly elected judge at a public hearing or a trial in a court of law?
Here’s news for you Nemo, You’ve got to sleep. Unnecessary use of dangerous props to make a point that everyone at the meeting already bought off on on the heels of an unanticipated slaughter of 26 innocent people in a public facility. Do you only grieve for victims of intentional violence? Would it not also have been a tragedy if Ms. Margolis had been shot because someone concluded there was a real weapon in that bag and couldn’t afford to wait and see what her plan was? I agree, we should let this go to court and see what additional value comes of that. No law against expressing an opinion in the meantime, is there? Or do you advocate silent democracies where no one can say what they think? If you do, does that mean everyone stays silent but you?
Perfect argument for getting guns out of the hands of civilians.
Well done ms margolis and sank t. Good day
Here are your answers Nemo. But, 1st off, please remember, the “gun” that Estelle purchased for her “demonstration” was a BB gun, not a firearm that shoots bullets. Anyone in the State of CT over the age of 17 can purchase BB gun, no questions asked and no registration or background checks required.
1) Yes.
2) Ask the purchaser. How would we know?
3) Schools = Yes / All Others = No
The United States Congress enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA), which was amended later to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling regarding constitutionality. The U.S. Code defines “school zone” as any public, parochial, or private school which provides elementary or secondary education (K-12).
4) On Private Property with the owner’s permission. Though I would check with the local municipality as they may be more restrictive.
5) Personal Protection.
6) No.
7) “…….we have to do something to make sure guns are only sold after some form of identity check and registration is done?”
Once again…..it was a BB gun, not a firearm. I.D.’s are checked for age to purcahse a BB gun……but the purchases are not “registered” like a firearm purchase is. Individual stores may have their own policy to take down the name of the purchaser.
8) IMHO – she should get the maximum penalty: $500. Fine and 3 Years in Jail. (see Natrob’s entry below)
What she did was stupid and irresponsible and she could have been killed for her little stunt!!
CHAPTER 943
OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY
Sec. 53-206. Carrying of dangerous weapons prohibited.
Sorry Wrecker, but I’ll repeat what I asked before. When someone pulls out a concealed rifle in a Town Meeting, do you think anyone, police official or not, is asking whether it’s a real rifle or not? Would anyone here be able to stand up in a public meeting and say, “don’t worry about that rifle that the old lady is waving around, it’s only a BB gun.” I think not.
Besides this, we also need to acknowledge that a BB pellet, well shot at different points of the body, CAN KILL YOU! Do we need to pull up all of the BB gun deaths and people maimed statistics to prove it?
Ms. Margolis broke the law. And she should own up to it and do the time; if she really cares about gun control.
Could someone please quote me the law that was broken when Estelle brought her BB gun into Town Hall? I hope it’s against the law to do that but I want to know what the law is.
Breach of the peace. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-181.htm
Ms. Gates, I dare you to go to the internet and look up the number of incidences of BB gun deaths and convictions thereof. A BB gun pellet, according to a company that manufactures and warns people who use this gun points out that a BB pellet is moves at 325 feet per second when fired. And can cause terrible bodily harm or death. Your blindness to the facts of this case is disturbing. Your long time friend made a serious error in judgement to the point of breaking the law. Under the law, she should be punished. Whether you think she is trying to save the world is irrelevant. And she is not trying to save the world, btw, she is attempting to get attention to herself. Sorry to clue you in so late in life.
CHAPTER 943
OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY
Sec. 53-206. Carrying of dangerous weapons prohibited. (a) Any person who carries upon his or her person any BB. gun, blackjack, metal or brass knuckles, or any dirk knife, or any switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which a blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches in length, or stiletto, or any knife the edged portion of the blade of which is four inches or more in length, any police baton or nightstick, or any martial arts weapon or electronic defense weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both. Whenever any person is found guilty of a violation of this section, any weapon or other instrument within the provisions of this section, found upon the body of such person, shall be forfeited to the municipality wherein such person was apprehended, notwithstanding any failure of the judgment of conviction to expressly impose such forfeiture.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to (1) any officer charged with the preservation of the public peace while engaged in the pursuit of such officer’s official duties; (2) the carrying of a baton or nightstick by a security guard while engaged in the pursuit of such guard’s official duties; (3) the carrying of a knife, the edged portion of the blade of which is four inches or more in length, by (A) any member of the armed forces of the United States, as defined in section 27-103, or any reserve component thereof, or of the armed forces of the state, as defined in section 27-2, when on duty or going to or from duty, (B) any member of any military organization when on parade or when going to or from any place of assembly, (C) any person while transporting such knife as merchandise or for display at an authorized gun or knife show, (D) any person who is found with any such knife concealed upon one’s person while lawfully removing such person’s household goods or effects from one place to another, or from one residence to another, (E) any person while actually and peaceably engaged in carrying any such knife from such person’s place of abode or business to a place or person where or by whom such knife is to be repaired, or while actually and peaceably returning to such person’s place of abode or business with such knife after the same has been repaired, (F) any person holding a valid hunting, fishing or trapping license issued pursuant to chapter 490 or any salt water fisherman carrying such knife for lawful hunting, fishing or trapping activities, or (G) any person while participating in an authorized historic reenactment; (4) the carrying by any person enrolled in or currently attending, or an instructor at, a martial arts school of a martial arts weapon while in a class or at an authorized event or competition or while transporting such weapon to or from such class, event or competition; (5) the carrying of a BB. gun by any person taking part in a supervised event or competition of the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of America or in any other authorized event or competition while taking part in such event or competition or while transporting such weapon to or from such event or competition; and (6) the carrying of a BB. gun by any person upon such person’s own property or the property of another person provided such other person has authorized the carrying of such weapon on such property, and the transporting of such weapon to or from such property.
Natrob!!!! WOW!!!! 1. Run for prosecutor before Estelle’s case comes up. 2. Throw away the key. This is a slam-dunk!!!!
Google is your friend!!
I don’t understand the fuss. If she had carried the offending material in a plastic bag, that would have been a much bigger offense. The article in the NYT indicates she wrapped the BB gun in a cloth; no harm no foul.
She could have carried it wrapped in the American flag in a Kate Spade purse…she brought a BB gun to an RTM meeting in a municipal building–that’s the “fuss.” It doesn’t matter how it was wrapped, it matters that it was carried in, someone reported seeing it, the police took what they believed to be necessary measures to protect the public. It does not matter what her intent was OR what her age is. She was wrong, she admitted she was wrong, she now needs to have her day (or days) in court.
The fuss comes from some citizens seeing what looked like a gun at the town hall meeting. They reported it to the police. Imagine being those men who thought that looks like a long gun? Imagine being the cops that someone at the meeting is carrying a gun in here. She is lucky she had put it down had walked away by the time the cops got there.
I am sure she is a very nice lady but this could of had a horrific outcome.
Having known about Ms. Margolis and her public activities for 40 years I think it is time we focus on what has become a spectacle for all the wrong reasons. I have agreed with Ms. Margolis’ public attempts to stop wars and bring an end to US government violence around the world. Yet her attempts at doing this by lying down in the middle of the Steinkraus Bridge is not quite what it appears to be. This kind of action brings attention only to one’s self, and not to the issue at hand.
Now Ms. Margolis’ desire to bring light to how easy it is to buy guns and show sympathy to the Newtown victims by showing up at a Westport Town Hall meeting with a concealed gun and ammunition really is more of the same. It is a wonderful attention getter; for her. And after writing her letters of apology, she thinks she should be excused from justice? And it seems she is going to get off her charge by applying her First Amendment rights. How were her First Amendment Rights violated? By her not being able to display and waive a gun around in a town hall meeting? Anyone who shows up at a Town Hall meeting with a concealed weapon and ammunition, no matter how old they are, should be charged with a felony, and not for a breach of peace misdemeanor. And I think that the WPD and the Westport Attorney’s Office is actually going easy on her with that charge.
Ultimately Ms. Margolis has been overshadowed by and was protected from the laws of our land, by her late husband. The WPD wasn’t going to spend the time or money on a protracted trial against a famous lawyer. She knew that. Apparently Ms. Margolis needs more attention. She is getting it. It is disturbing that the noise level of her possible guilt is so low. Now she is trying to be the Westport Town Martyr by going through this process.
A couple of questions remain:
1. Was her bail hearing publicly disclosed? How much was it and who posted it?
2. Will Ms. Margolis be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation? If not, why?
I submit that Ms. Margolis was actually trying to tell everyone her intentions when she declared how much she missed Manny. Anyone who shows up to a Town Hall Meeting with a gun with the intention of waiving it around, has a death wish. Meaning she wanted to meet up with Manny in never never land. Only she wanted to go out in a blaze of glory because of her megalomania. And that would have left the poor souls who may have had to shoot her with the desperate memory of killing an 86 year old woman. The same sentiments as those poor souls who may have run over her with their car 40 years ago.