Woman convicted of stabbing neighbor in winter parking beef

Andino A Suffolk Superior Court jury today convicted Carmen Andino of Mission Hill for stabbing a neighbor in a dispute over a parking space the neighbor had shoveled out but Andino then claimed, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.

Andino, 40, will be sentenced on May 9, the DA's office reports. Andino's daughter was acquitted of charges she helped her mother in the attack.

Prosecutors convinced the jury that Andino went into a rage when the neighbor returned from a trip after a snowstorm, found two children's play tables Andino had put in the McGreevey Way space and moved them for her car:

Testimony indicated that Andino became very angry over this, threatening to slash the car's tires if the woman didn't move the car. The street had public parking and no reserved spaces. Nonetheless, the victim defused the conflict by moving the car.

On Jan. 11, 2010, testimony established, the victim heard her apartment buzzer ring, accompanied by loud banging on her door and yelling from the street. It was Andino again, the evidence showed, summoning her outside.

The victim went downstairs, where it became clear that Andino wanted to fight. The two women became engaged in a physical altercation that went on until Andino was on the ground. At that point, the victim was struck in the shoulder with a metal implement, causing an injury about two inches deep. Prosecutors alleged it was a screwdriver wielded by Andino's daughter; jurors acquitted that 17-year-old defendant of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

Evidence and testimony demonstrated that Andino got up from the ground and produced a knife, which she used to slash at the victim's face. As blood poured into her eye, the victim began to back away from Andino. ...

Andino continued toward the victim, slashing at her with a kitchen knife and cutting open a long slice beneath her left arm.The laceration was so deep that the victim testified she saw white tissue coming out of the wound. A friend rushed the woman back into the house, from where she was later transported to Brigham and Women's Hospita

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Perfect example right here

This waste of life cut a woman's arm open! She didn't even give the victim a chance to pull out a knife of her own!

You want to pay to jail this woman for 40 years? Hell no! People saw her stab the lady. It's obvious that she did it. Time for her to die with minimal red tape and obstacles.

Obvious, eh?

People saw her stab the lady.

Umm... isn't what you meant to write, "A newspaper article says that someone testified to having seen her stab the lady?"

That's an awful lot of indirection there, to be so sure you know what happened.

Witnesses say

They say you do it.

You didn't do it, but witnesses say ...

Funny how the same people who get worked up over theoretical false accusations of rape are the ones ready to execute on the thinnest evidence for less than fatal crimes.

Even though we know that mistaken identity and prosecutor zeal lead to mistaken execution - sorry, but history, evidence, and reality are NOT on your side here Will.

The million dollar question

Did the victim immediately within the course of the fight have a knife on her person that she could use to defend against the other knife? Did the hospital staff find a knife on her? Hell, were they even summoned to testify?

As I indicated in an earlier thread (see my comment entitled "My non-exclusive list of crimes I deem executable"), the convicted party should be executed not for killing the lady, but merely for using a knife against a person that did not bring a knife to the fight.

Time for this to end

There have been many reports of property damage as well as violence over this asinine "Space Savers" practice. It's illegal yet for some reason the city of Boston and BPD turn a blind eye.

I don't give a rats ass if you shoveled the spot or not. It's PUBLIC PROPERTY! Do you know what PUBLIC means? It means "everyone" not "you". If you want your own space, rent one or move somewhere that you have a garage or off-street parking.

If almost everyone shovels out a spot, that's many spots "EVERYONE" can use.

Grow up, put on your big boy pants, and stop being a selfish prick!

No-one from out of the area even believes me when I say this happens in the winter.

Is it illegal?

The mayor has a policy that allows space savers for up 48hrs after the storm. I've never heard of a legal challenge and nearly every public street in Boston has certain restrictions for parking. Is this any different? Get rid of resident parking and this nonsense probably goes away.

It's nice

the mayor has a policy to literally leave shit in the street for 48 hours after a storm, but it not legal to save a space, cause property destruction to protect a space, or stab someone over a space.

That's all very much illegal, and has been turned a blind eye.

Sad thing is, this type of policy leads people to believe that stuff is all legal. The mayors office is condoning this shit by his inability to fix the problem, and his going along with it.

Perfect example right here

why Menino needs to get off his fat ass and do something about the winter parking issues. It's lawlessness run amok and sanctioned by city hall because "this is how we do it".

Meanwhile property is being destroyed and eventually someone might lose life or limb from these idiots claiming public property as their own.

Remove all space savers daily and implement a plow to the curb program along with winter even/odd parking bans the day of and following snow storms.

It shouldn't be that hard to implement. And the roads get plowed as is.

Do something Mr. Mayor.

Parking bans already exist

Parking bans already exist during snow emergencies and as far as I know, the ordinance for non-snow emergency roads is even / odd. Park on odd side on odd years, on the even side on even years.
As far as space savers, they should not be allowed at all.

somerville?

Because I've never heard of or seen the even/odd ordinance in action past Nov 30th...

You are right on the main byways, they do implement bans there and plow to the curb. But that's about it, and it isn't where there's space-saver issues.

I always remove people's space savers

This hasn't been in issue in my neighborhood, until recently. Some residents moved in last year, and are part of this space saving mentality group of drivers. So, when I see a space saver now, I pull it off of the road, and put it far up on the sidewalk.

If these people want a guaranteed space, they can rent one one block up at the closest parking garage. If they need the spaces for moving, they can go down to city hall and get temp parking ban signs like other law abiding citizens do.

Might work

in a area where it's just starting to infect, but good luck doing so in places where it's now prevalent. You can't combat it when it's entrenched besides law enforcement and the city stepping up

Otherwise you might just instigate problems like the above.

I'd remove every last one myself in Southie, and am temped to, but I know at least a few people who then took the free spots would come back to property damage or some thug hovering over the spot enraged.

All you have to do is mix

the tolerated practice of space saving with crazy ass people and you have violent crime. I agree that it should be completely banned, space savers tossed and no 48 hour window for saving spots. People didn't do this when I lived in Cambridge and we all found spots somehow.

agreed

I have written the Mayor's office and my City Councillors with a link to this story and let them know I think the city should move to ban the use of space-savers and implement even/odd parking bans to clear snow to the curb.

A twist on privatization?

My next door neighbor identifies the road space in front of his house as his space year round. It is asphalt paid and maintained by public dollars. But in his mind because the space fronts his house he has some extra-legal right to it. This is year round.

There are other public or common places which have now been turned into privatized spaces. Anyone using a cell phone on a bus or subway has stolen from the common good a space for their conversation. They effectively force their living room or office onto the T. If the conversation was not audible there would be no issue. But cell phone conversations, especially the agitated conversations, are often obnoxiously loud. The result is that the only way to not hear one side of the conversation is to literally move away.

The same applies to the use of MP3 players and bleeding earbuds in public spaces. The noise from this private activity intrudes upon and violates the ability of anyone to enjoy the companionable silence that used to exist on public transportation.

Same goes for all other electronic gadgets. Planes, trains and buses are saturated to the point of pollution with a grotesque amount of constant electronic noise that mostly serve only the purpose or distracting or entertaining the users, but spoiling the one thing that everyone can possess together: the quiet use of common space.

There are variations that have different effects. Anyone who blabbers on a cell phone when checking out at a retail counter is treating the person behind the counter as though he or she is a machine. The person on the cell phone effectively dehumanizes the person behind the counter. I am glad for businesses that refuse to wait on any customer who is blabbering on their cell when checking out.

Prohibiting space savers is a good step. But the bigger issue is that we are loosing a valuable skill: the skill of how to respectfully and cooperatively live with other people in a public place.

Um

IMAGE(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/997/how_about_no_evil.jpg)

You have a right to 100% complete peace and quiet in public places as much as you have the right to the unobstructed view from your overpriced, shitty condo; none at all.

There's such a thing as appropriate and acceptable, and as much as you hate cellphone use or music players it doesn't much go past the bar of a personal annoyance. It's not illegal, nor should it be.

In other words, Deal with it.

Or better yet be a little introspective and figure out why something so benign bothers you so much as to hilariously equate commandeering a physical public good under the auspice of vigilantly justice as the same thing as legal noise and use of public spaces.

Whats next, arguing those flickies at the penny arcade are the downfall of society?

Um - me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

The hyperbole of your response suggests that perhaps a little introspection would help reveal the motivation behind your tirade.

We each have a right to a reasonable level of peace and quiet on public transportation. Otherwise there would be no regulations concerning boom boxes on public transportation.

Why do you make so many assumptions about where I live or resort to potty mouth speech to make a point?

While I doubt if public transportation in this country, in this lifetime, will amount to something above tolerable, there is plenty that riders can do to make it more tolerable. Granting other riders a moment of a reasonable degree of noise (earbud bleed and arguments on cell phones are unreasonable) is an important step in that direction.

I am curious concerning your opinion about a cell phone conversation when checking out of a grocery store or other retail shop. Do you use your cell phone at the counter? Or do you treat the counter person with a little courtesy and civility by stopping the conversation until you have left?

How we treat strangers - the person next to us on a subway or the person behind a counter - is a good indicator of just how much respect we are willing to give anyone.

heh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

There's laws on the books. No one you're complaining about is breaking the law. They're minding their own businesses and it's wise for others to do the same instead of trying to legislate their own narrow views on morality, respect and what is proper.

This falls into the category of the post on Marlborough trying to enforce a old, unconstitutional ban on having a "potty mouth". Sorry toots, but lead by example, not by trying to squash bad habits through bad laws.

And to equate/hijack it in regards to property damage and physical harm due to the space saver issues is kinda of out there. So yes, I'm going to be dismissive. a women got her arm slashed and you're trying to say someone with their loud music using ear buds is an issue.

Perspective...

Reading carefully rewards with clarity

To not get too far afield I figure it's important to acknowledge that Ms. Andino's behavior was utterly and absolutely criminal. It may indicate that there are psychological problems that go way beyond this instance of violence.

You raise a good question. Does anyone have a right to impose their morality or standards of behavior on anyone else? When someone is loudly talking or arguing on their cell phone on the subway, creating an uncomfortable situation for everyone sitting near him or her, isn't that person imposing their standards of behavior on everyone else? What gives that person the right to make other people uncomfortable?

My point is that the mass privatization of public spaces - especially when taken to the extreme of claiming a parking space year round - is bad for everyone. It throws out any sense of sharing or cooperation and declares that whatever I claim is mine and nobody else. A pretty selfish attitude.

The Middleborough (not Marlborough - please read carefully) is an interesting comparison. We take as a given that the legal regulation of speech in most contexts is very limited (the Supreme Court giving monied entities greater power of speech notwithstanding). But expecting from each other a self-regulation of speech is not unreasonable.

Does any of this have to do with laws? On the subway or buses it would be impossible to regulate the use of cell phones. Bleeding earbuds could be subject to regulation since boom boxes already are. But an ice cube has a better chance of not melting in the Mojave Desert than any regulations concerning loud earbuds being passed.

But the unwritten rules of conduct are another matter all together. We each have a right to argue for what we believe is best. You have the right to argue for making as much noise as you want and I have the right to argue for a noise level that respects everyone's use of public spaces.

If it is a matter of perspective then there are two perspectives. One is that public spaces are to be used and abused with the attitude of to hell with the concerns or needs of other people. The other perspective is that common spaces and places belong to us and so it is best to use them carefully and gently so that everyone can enjoy them. I think the latter perspective is superior to the former perspective.