San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

December 1st, 2009
Luling teen faces three murder charges

Frank Castro.


The Luling teenager who left the scene of a botched marijuana heist and returned after all the shots had been fired now faces three counts of murder.

A Hays County District grand jury has indicted Frank Castro, 18, for one count of capital murder, two counts of felony murder and one count of aggravated robbery.

Castro was one of four Luling teenagers who entered a home on 926 Chestnut Street at around 2 a.m. on Sept. 4 looking for marijuana. The Hays County District Attorney’s (DA) office said one of the juveniles was armed with a loaded 9 mm handgun, while Castro and another juvenile held pellet guns.

When a confrontation ensued between an occupant of the home and the teenagers, a second occupant overhead, retrieved a 40-caliber Glock handgun and went to investigate. Seeing four intruders carrying weapons and wearing bandanas to cover their faces, the resident with the Glock opened fire on them.

John Alvarez and Rudy Tinoco, each 16, died in the shootings. Jordan Mendez, 16, received serious wounds and was transported to Brackenridge Hospital. Mendez was treated and later released, though the DA’s office said he is recovering from his injuries. Castro fled the home unharmed, but returned and was arrested at the scene.

Castro later told police that the teenagers entered the home intending to steal marijuana. Castro told police that a male resident known as “Harry Potter” sold large quantities of “dro,” a higher and more expensive grade of marijuana, out of the home. SMPD has not confirmed if one of the residents present during the burglary was “Harry Potter.”

Said San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams, “They were looking for drugs and they knew where to find them.”

A combination of Texas laws has resulted in the DA filing murder charges against a party who held a pellet gun and fled the scene, while no charges are filed against the party whose shots killed two people.

The “castle doctrine” holds that homeowners have the right to use deadly force, if necessary, to protect themselves or their property without liability. In addition, said Williams, “The law in Texas is such that if you are a member of a conspiracy and you’re engaged in some crime, you are responsible for what happens.”

Said the DA’s office, in a statement, “Under Texas law, any person who is a party to an offense is criminally liable for the actions of all co-actors who participated in the commission of the crime. Also under Texas law the fact that the individuals who were killed were participants in the robbery does not absolve a co-participant from criminal responsibility for their deaths.”

Williams, who turned the matter over to the DA’s office after the San Marcos Police Department (SMPD) finished its investigation, said he has received several questions from people wondering how to rationalize the charges.

“As long as the facts fit the law, it’s (the DA’s) decision,” Williams said.

Hays County District Attorney Sherri Tibbe said Tuesday that her office will not seek the death penalty against Castro. However, felony murder and aggravated robbery are first degree felonies carrying life in prison or any term of between five and 99 years.

“This incident resulted in the deaths of two young people as well as a third suffering serious injury,” Tibbe said. “Additionally it has caused concern to the citizens of San Marcos about the safety of their community. Our office is taking this and similar incidents extremely seriously and intends to see that those who choose to engage in this type of conduct are held accountable. With these indictments we feel that a message is being sent that this type of criminal behavior will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Though Castro turned 18 on Tuesday, he was a juvenile at the time of the episode. He will be arraigned on Dec. 10 in Judge Charles Ramsay’s 22nd District Court. Assistant DA Fred Weber will try the case for the county, while San Marcos attorney David S. Watts will represent Castro.

chestnutThe home at 926 Chestnut Street, where the alleged murders took place.

Email Email | Print Print


30 thoughts on “Luling teen faces three murder charges

  1. I suppose the only reason that the death penalty isn’t being sought is the alleged drug overtones of the victim here.

    I don’t get why people are questioning the charges. He was part of a group that willingly conspired to commit a crime. During the commission of that crime, two people were killed. It doesn’t matter who those two people were, as someone who participated in both the planning and commission of the crime, he’s responsible for their deaths. It makes perfect sense to me.

  2. There was a Fred Weber that went to Luling High School and graduated around 1990. I wonder if he’s the same Fred Weber who is working this case for the county?

    That would be a strange coincidence.

  3. I am not giving a legal opinion, but as a citizen, it matters to me who died and who killed them. The charged kid didn’t intend to kill anyone. He intended to rob someone but the robbery attempt was unsuccessful and the inteded target was unharmed. I think he should be charged with attempted robbery.

    It would be wholly different if one of his companions killed the robbery target. Why didn’t the DA charge the seriously injured individual with murder? The same illogic applies. Basically, this kid might get 99 years because he was lucky enough to get out the front door.

  4. my name is enedina castro 16 years old; little sister of frank castro this is all mest up he did not kill anyone sp therefore he shouldnt be getting that and anyone esle against it should go to h**l!

  5. I believe that if you’re commiting a crime and someone gets hurt – or killed – as a result of your actions then you should be held responsible for it. It sounds like this is the standard of law that this young man will be tried under.

    Had they not been committing this crime, then no one would have died that night because the homeowner would have had no reason to shoot them. It’s direct cause and effect.

  6. I understand the concept of felony murder, but I do not think it appropriate in this case. The intended victim was not harmed, nor is this a case where a police officer or an innocent bystander was harmed. The “victims” were co-conspirators. The young man didn’t kill anyone, intend to kill anyone, or act in such a way that led to injury to his intended (robbery) victim.

    Saying that there is a causal link shouldn’t be the standard for imprisoning a young man for his life. The DA could have just gone for aggravated robbery, and I think that would have been fairer.

  7. I don’t understand how Frank Castro can be reasonably held accountable for those two deaths. He did not kill those two people, nor did he plan to kill them, and neither was he solely responsible for the situation whereby they were killed. The blame for the two deaths rests mostly on the shoulders of the people who died – they chose – to the extent people that young can act with deliberation – to invade another’ home armed with deadly weapons and weapons that any reasonable person would assume to be deadly. Therefore, they were mostly responsible for their own deaths. There is absolutely no clear causal link between Castro’s actions and the two deaths. Even if it could be proved that he hatched the plan to commit the act of aggression and he egged the other people on, he could still not be reasonable held responsible for the two deaths, because he did not force them to invade the home, nor could it be reasonably said that he somehow influenced them to such an extent that they could not have resisted his influence. The parents of those killed are more responsible for the deaths than Castro is, but I would sanction no retributive or punitive action against them. There could be a role for restorative or transformative justice here – which might involve the parents of those killed meeting with Castro’s parents and the person who shot their children, but, unfortunately, our justice system does not seem currently set up to move people in that healing direction.

  8. From a DA perspective, it is easier to list the higher charge now and potentially reduce it later, rather than the other way around.

  9. It seems to be a serious twisting of the law of parties. If A, B & C decide to rob a store, A is driving and C shoots the clerk; A can be held accountable. I’m finewith that. Here, using the same situation, the Clerk shoots C; and A is being held accountable. That, I’m not fine with. Memo to DA Tibbe, you don’t want me on this jury.

  10. The law is clear in this state and every other – for a couple hundred years – that this defendant can be charged with felony murder when anyone, including his co-defendants, is killed due to their actions in the course of the felony. The inherent danger of the commission of a violent felony, and the participant’s intent to cause or risk serious harm to others justifies the felony murder rule.

    Whether he intended to kill anyone doesn’t matter (and how the above posters can state his intentions is beyond me).

    Depending on the jurisdiction, it may be felony murder even if the circumstances are as odd as this:

    in the getaway car they fled and caused an accident and killed someone

    the co-defendant fired a warning shot into the ceiling, and the bullet ricocheted out the window and killed a neighbor

    the victim shot at a co-defendant in self defense and missed and killed a bystander

    a co-defendant accidentally shoots another co-defendant or the victim accidentally shoots himself

    the cops shoot a co-defendant or an innocent party accidentally in the course of an arrest

    a co-defendant does nothing more than knowingly participate in the felony by driving the getaway car

    the victim had a heart attack

  11. I appreciate Mr. Baker’s legal opinion as he is certainly one of the foremost criminal lawyers in Hays County, and I have no doubt that the felony murder definition COULD be broad enough to allow this charge. But as a citizen, I still do not feel the individual SHOULD be charged with felony murder for the death of a cohort at the hands of the intended victim. The outer limits of the legal definition and just application thereof are not necessarily coterminus.

    To me, the defendant’s intent is very important, because he is not charged with an act of recklessness, but rather the intent to rob is being transferred to the felony murder. That is simply a bridge too far for me in this situation, and I feel it is the DA’s job to use reason and her brain in determining the proper charge, which isn’t necessarily the most she might get a grand jury to stomach but what is just considering the circumstance.

    I wonder if Mr. Baker has a justification for the capital murder charge?

  12. look guys i know all of the boys that were involved that night. they were never bad kids just made one bad choice that cost their lives. fank castro was a good friend of mine and he was a good roll model to me. im gonna miss him because he always made me laugh! but i think it is wrong to pin murder on him that he didnt commit! the house they broke into was a dope house and yall wanna congadulate the man for killing them? well i hope “harry potter” can sell some good stuff to the judge and howard williams for giving fankie the charges!! they should have put him in jail!!

  13. This story reminds me of an old Batman comic I read when I was a kid, where Bruce Wayne was attending law school.

    His law professor tells him a story about a possible case where a man is a passenger in a car with another man, and the driver of the car accidentally runs over and kills a pedestrian. The passenger is charged with manslaughter along with the driver.

    Wayne objects to this, saying that it is not justice, and his professor responds with something like “no, but it is the law, Mr. Wayne.”

    The story is given as part of the reason that Bruce chose to become Batman and take justice into his own hands, since the system is often incapable of delivering it.

    In the particularly absurd example of the Frank Castro case, one has to wonder whether the complex and esoteric nature of our legal system leads those who work in it to forget why the system came into being in the first place.

    “That’s the law” is never a reasonable ending to any ethical discussion.

  14. Well it’s been a long time since I had reason to look at the statute, criminal law not being of interest to me, but as I remember it, the reference is always to the actions of coconspirators.

    Four of Mr. Baker’s exampels fit that situation, and as such, are not appropriate for this situation. As for “depending on the jurisdiction” what specifically is the law in Texas?

  15. Section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code outlines the following:
    A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if “acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense he solicits, encourages, directs, aids or attempts to aid the other persons to commit the offense” or “If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.”

  16. My opinion is that the good people of Hays County would find Mr. Castro guilty of aggravated robbery in a heartbeat; but the murder charges may stick in someone’s craw.

    As to the language of the statute and how it has been interpreted, a good case for writing the law in english, not in lawyer.

  17. Jason, I do not believe that provision allows a murder charge against Castro as it requires the “[]other felony” to be “committed by one of the conspirators[.]” Thus, it only gets Castro with a crime of his co-conspirators — namely aggravated robbery. It does not make Castro responsible for the actions of shooter here as he was not a co-conspirator.
    Instead as Mr. Baker pointed out, Castro CAN be prosecuted under Section 19.02(b)(3). That doesn’t mean he SHOULD be so prosecuted.

  18. In response to some of Mr. Baker’s comments:

    Barker: Whether he intended to kill anyone doesn’t matter (and how the above posters can state his intentions is beyond me).

    Shusui: Castro’s intentions with regards to the deaths of his colleagues are relevant because no one can reasonably assert that Castro intended for his colleagues to die. The fact that Castro did not kill his colleagues, and the fact that there is no evidence of him coercing them into committing the aggression, seems to me to support the argument against holding him responsible for their deaths.

    Again, the ones who were killed were most responsible for their own deaths. I think witness testimony indicates that those killed “drew steel” first; so that, among other aspects of the situation, seems to justify the reasonableness of taking the part of the occupant who fired the shots, who did not create the circumstance necessitating his apparent act of self-defense.

    The question over what the DA can legally charge Castro with is interesting, but not as relevant as the question of whether Castro is being treated justly, and whether human dignity is being respected. Castro’s colleagues were most responsible for their own deaths, and to say otherwise seems to rob them of something inherently human, and by extension rob all of us of that dignity. We must be the author of those actions for which we are held responsible. If responsibility is being intentionally displaced, then human dignity is not being respected.

  19. I apologize for not fully addressing Mr. Barker’s comment. Regarding his comment about intentions: Intentions matter because the chief characteristic of human beings is their ability to reason, and if deliberation is struck down as an analyzable item in the course of assessing responsibility for the action it fathered, then the existence of human dignity is denied. Reasonably discerned intentions serve to mitigate or exacerbate the severity of consequences resulting from actions good or ill. If there is no merit in doing good without any intention of doing good, then there is no demerit in doing evil without any intention of doing evil – though, demerit in the latter instance would be assigned if the actor realized the consequences of the action, yet failed to attempt redress. The author of an action, being the necessary, sapient link in the causal chain, must have some role in redressing any wrongs resulting from the action, lest we view human beings as mere flotsam unable to act according to standards by which civilizations can be built or sustained.

  20. Involuntary manslaughter? From Castro’s point of view or “non-intention” of death of co-defendent, it was an accident that co-defendent was killed , although the shooters intention WAS to stop the co-defendent.

    Because of his age, I hope he is only tried for the aggravated robbery and stupidity.


    Under the circumstances and Texas law, one could argue that he did not (all of the following apply):
    1. commit or attempt to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life,
    2. in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt to commit a felony,
    3. that caused the death of his co-defendant.

    In other words, did his act cause the death of another?

    I guess it depends on what you mean by “cause”?

    There are two schools of thought. Some jurisdictions use the agency theory – only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Other jurisdictions use the proximate cause theory – any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that the felony is the proximate cause (reasonably forseeable that the harm actually caused by the act is within the realm of what one might expect) of the death – i.e., one might say that it is reasonably forseeable that if one commits a burglary in the nighttime, and is armed, and in the course thereof, commits an aggravated assault, that another might be shot and killed. Under the later, surely it is felony murder. Under the former (Texas law), it may not be, as it was not the defendant’s, or his conspirator’s, act that caused the death.



    NO. 1767-00






    Cochran, J., filed a concurring opinion in which, Keller, P.J., Keasler and Holcomb, JJ., joined.


    I join the majority opinion. I write separately to provide an additional rationale for our decision and to review the historical purpose of the felony murder rule in hopes of assisting the bench and bar in analyzing the application of this doctrine.

    The felony murder rule developed under early common law. It holds that a person whose conduct causes an unintended death during the commission or attempted commission of a felony is guilty of murder. (1) Thus, if a robber points a gun at the bank teller and the gun “accidentally” discharges, killing the bank teller, then the bank robber is guilty of murder. It matters not whether the robber intended to shoot or whether he intended to kill. (2) Train robbers who force a brakeman to serve as their shield and take them to the express car are guilty of murder when a passenger, hoping to foil the robbery, shoots and kills the brakeman. (3) Under common law, one who commits arson may be found guilty of the murder of a person who died inside the house or by fighting the fire even though the arsonist did not intend to cause any personal injury by his act. (4)

    In contrast, the offense of manslaughter is never felony murder, for obvious reasons. (5) Involuntary manslaughter is, by definition, an accidental homicide, committed with recklessness. If involuntary manslaughter could form the basis of a felony murder prosecution, each and every such recklessly caused death would constitute felony murder. The offense of involuntary manslaughter would be swallowed up by the felony murder rule. Voluntary manslaughter is also always exempt from the felony murder doctrine because it is illogical to assign a lesser punishment for an actor who commits a murder in the “heat of passion,” but then turn around and bump the crime back up to murder under the felony murder doctrine. (6)

    The principle behind the common law felony murder rule is this: When you embark upon an inherently dangerous criminal project, you are responsible for the deadly consequences that result from that felonious conduct. (7) The doctrine originally applied to all felonies or those crimes denominated as malum in se. (8) Because virtually all crimes in 18th and 19th century England were classified as felonies, the rule became intolerably overbroad and harsh in its consequences. As one English judge put it in 1887: “it was said that if a man shot at a fowl with intent to steal it, and accidentally killed a man, he was to be accounted guilty of murder, because the act was done in the commission of a felony. I very much doubt, however, whether this is really the law . . .” (9)

    If it ever had been English law that a chicken thief who accidentally killed a person in the course of stealing the fowl is guilty of murder, that law quickly changed. The common law rule was narrowed to this: a homicide resulting from any felony committed in a dangerous or violent way, is murder. (10)

    In the United States, courts and legislatures have narrowed the original (and overbroad) felony murder doctrine in various ways, including one or more of the following: (11)

    * by limiting its application to certain enumerated felonies which are inherently dangerous; (12)
    * by imposing stricter criteria for determining whether the fatal act created a foreseeable risk to human life; (13)
    * by imposing a stricter standard for the time that may elapse between the felony’s commission and the victim’s death; (14) or
    * by requiring that the underlying felony be independent from the conduct which causes the death. (15)

    The Texas Legislature chose to narrow the common law felony murder rule set out in section 19.02(b)(3) of the Penal Code in two distinct ways. First, the statute requires that, regardless of the specific underlying felony (always excepting manslaughter, of course), the defendant must commit an act that is “clearly dangerous to human life.” Instead of simply enumerating specific felonies which, in the abstract, are usually dangerous, the Legislature required that the state prove that this specific actor, under these specific circumstances, did some act that was clearly dangerous. This limitation preserves the original justification for the felony murder rule-a person is criminally responsible for the consequences of his dangerous and violent criminal conduct-while protecting the defendant against prosecution for murder for an unforeseeable death which occurs during the commission of a felony which is violent in the abstract, but not in the particular case. (16) Second, the Legislature narrowed the proximate cause relationship in the felony murder rule. Not only must the defendant commit an act that is clearly dangerous to human life, it must also be that specific act which causes the victim’s death. The State must prove that but for the dangerous act, the deceased would not have died. (17) The death must be the natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s dangerous conduct. (18)

    Despite these two explicit legislative limitations, this Court imposed another, non-statutory, restriction on the felony murder rule. This extra limitation was the “merger” doctrine, announced in Garrett v. State, (19) which held that the actor’s conduct constituting the underlying felony must be separate and distinct from the “clearly dangerous” act which causes the person’s death. In Garrett, the defendant initiated a fight with a store clerk, pulled a gun to scare him, and the gun “went off,” killing the clerk. Garrett was charged with felony murder, with the underlying felony being aggravated assault. This Court held that “[t]here must be a showing of felonious criminal conduct other than the assault causing the homicide.” (20) There is not and never was any such requirement in section 19.02(b)(3), nor was there any such requirement at common law. Under modern common law, “[h]omicide is murder if the death results from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony.” (21) Aggravated assault is surely an inherently dangerous felony. Even if a felony assault were not inherently dangerous in a specific case under specific circumstances, the Texas Legislature restricted the application of the doctrine to those particular instances in which the actor committed an act clearly dangerous to human life which caused the death of a person.

    The concern in Garrett was that every aggravated assault that resulted in a death would then be subject to prosecution as a murder. True enough, if the actor commits an act clearly dangerous to human life which causes the person’s death. That is precisely the rationale of the felony murder rule. But unlike involuntary manslaughter, not every aggravated assault results in death. If manslaughter could constitute the underlying felony in a felony murder, then every single manslaughter case would be automatically upped to felony murder. The offense of manslaughter itself would be obviated. That is neither logical nor legal. (22) But not every instance of aggravated assault, injury to a child, criminal mischief, etc. ends in death. Not every instance of these offenses is the result of an act that is clearly dangerous to human life. Not every instance of these offenses would automatically be upped to felony murder. Use of these offenses as the basis of a felony murder prosecution do not pose the same logical and legal problem of merger that involuntary manslaughter has always been recognized, both at common law and in felony murder statutes, as posing.

    Certainly one legitimate way to limit the overbroad old common law felony murder rule is to require the commission of some felony, any felony except manslaughter, plus an additional violent or dangerous act which causes the death. (23) However, the Texas Legislature did not choose this method. It chose to limit the felony murder rule by two alternate restrictions. It had both the power and authority to do so. This Court might have the power, but it does not have the authority, to create other, nonstatutory limitations upon the felony murder statute set out in section 19.02(b)(3).

    Is Garrett the law in Texas today? Does the judicially created merger doctrine still apply in Texas felony murder cases? The majority declines to say. But if the Garrett merger doctrine does still exist, it has been distinguished, limited, disagreed with, and eroded into virtual nonexistence by this Court. (24) The best historical analysis of the felony murder doctrine, critique of Garrett, and conclusion that the felony murder merger doctrine is not a part of Texas statutory law is contained in Presiding Judge (retired) Onion’s relatively recent opinion in Rodriguez v. State. (25) After discussing the historical basis of the common law felony murder rule, its adoption and evolution in Texas, the statutory definition of felony murder in the 1974 Penal Code, the “troublesome” Garrett decision in 1978, its subsequent erosion as this Court “recogniz[ed] its intrusion on legislative turf,” Judge Onion concluded that the 1994 Penal Code definition of felony murder under section 19.02(b)(3) statutorily superseded and rejected the merger rule judicially created in Garrett. He stated:

    Our legislature within its constitutional role remains free to abolish felony murder or limit its application or effect to other felonies. It is not the role of courts to abolish or judicially limit or expand a constitutionally valid statutory offense clearly defined by the legislature. (26)

    I agree. The offense of felony murder is defined by section 19.02(b)(3) of the Penal Code. It should not be defined or limited by Garrett or any other judicially created merger rule.

    Cochran, J.

  22. i know all of the boys that were involved that night.2 were close friends franks my brother n another was my cusin. they were never bad kids. fank castro didnt kill no1.its wrong to pin murder on him that he didnt commit! the house they broke into was a dope house everyone knowa that. yall wanna congradulate the man for killing them my cusin and close friend? they should have put “harry potter” in jail…

    Basically put it this way, what would you think, how would you feel or what would you do if castro was your son and you were his mother/father, or he was your close and only brother or cusin, close friend that made you laugh so hard no1 ever can make you laugh and that was accused of murdering his own cusin & bestfriend that he didnt even do.

    that “harry potter man” did it and he even said he did thats why the police took all his guns away so now why are they now tryin to say frank castro did!!

  23. @frank castro- learn how to spell first and second his parents should have played a greater role. you should have told him to quit smoking pot, but I think you smoked with him. If you knew him as intimately as you claim you should have intervened in his life. It was premeditated they got what they deserved. If I broke into your home you would feel the same way regarless of my motive. Get over it and be there for Frank when he is released from jail. be something positive for him. Learn from his mistake and help him learn to.

  24. I do know how to spell and when your typing fast your words get messed up sometimes and your supposed to be the smart one. I know him very well a whole lot more than anyone else did and if you did break into my home i would not have shot you multipule times.I would never shoot anyone in the first place and if i did i would have called the cops right then and there instead of waiting for a f***ing hour and leting the ones suffer for “HARRY POTTER’S” stupidity……

  25. @ “free frank castro”
    Your friend, who you claim was “never a bad kid” was involved in a felony in which two died.

    Under state law, that’s capital murder. No one is saying Castro killed anyone. No one disputes that a resident of that house killed the other people. And as a matter of fact, the residents of that house will go to jail for the ONLY crime they committed – possession of a little bit of weed. You are still entitled to defend your life and property even if you have a little ‘dro in the house.

    Castro, on the other hand, committed the VERY SERIOUS felonious crime of home invasion. In Texas, no less, where almost everyone has a gun and is prepared to defend their home against just such actions.

    He will be tried and will get the sentence the court feels he deserves.It doesn’t matter that you know him, and it doesn’t matter that you wouldn’t shoot anyone for breaking into your house. It doesn’t matter that it was a dope house they broke into. What matters is that Castro committed a felony, and in the course of committing that felony, two people died. He was involved in the planning and committing of that felony and as such he responsible for those two deaths.

    Home invasion is the kind of crime that gets people killed. And Frank Castro’s involvement in that crime led to two deaths and he will be justifiably charged in those deaths.

    This is not fun and games. This is serious life or death stuff. I know you wish it wasn’t so, but he put himself in this position and you can’t wish it away.

  26. Chad, you sound like the old Saturday Night Live punchline … “Another drug-related death!”

  27. like i said why would they do that you wouldn’t like it if someone accused you of killing your bestfriend and cusin and that night they came and got him…..

  28. okay, listen. i personally knew 3 of the guys, didn’t really know of castro. nevertheless, no one deserved to die. john and rudy were sweet kids. they were very funny and every time i talked to them, i had a good laugh. jordan is a great kid as well. they’re getting judged on one mistake that cost john and rudy their lives and castro his freedom. then you have jordan, who’s probably scarred for life, physically and emotionally

    yes, i understand the law. but it is wrong to place murder charges on castro. he didn’t pull the trigger. he should get charged only for ATTEMPTIVE robbery, due to the fact that the robbery itself wasn’t successful.

    from what i read on another website, mark sydney smith and brain matthew smith are getting charged with possession of marijuana. my personal opinion is that whoever shot jordan and shot and KILLED rudy and john should be the one getting charged for murder. castle doctrine…blah blah blah. was it really necessary to shoot the kids as many times as they got shot? that is unreasonable and UNnecessary. haven’t you seen the video of when they interviewed one of the guys in the house. you can tell he was high off of something.

    and i feel bad for the three that got shot. watching your best friends slowly die. shouldn’t that be enough punishment. that’s just plain out cruel. and for castro as well, returning to the scene to look for his friends and finding that two are dead and one is clinging on to life is punishment as well.

    honestly, this “harry potter” knew at least two of the guys. i looked on news 8 austin and my friends told me that all but one boy had been to that particular house before. i mean come on, that house isn’t the prettiest on the block at all. there has to be a reason why that particular house was chosen. my opinion on the incident. it was a drug deal gone horribly wrong. and don’t think that because i knew the guys, that’s why i’m automatically taking their side. i’ve researched the facts and stories.

    so stop being judgemental. get your facts straight and you know there is more than just three internet sites with stories of this incident posted. READ THEM

  29. Response to Mr. John M.

    Considering everything that happened, and it being so many years later, I really think that Jordan Mendez should NOT be charged with anything that deals with the murders. More information was found out about the house, and it in fact was a 24/7 household. Drugs were found. If you search the topic a bit more, you will see the exact amounts of drugs found. There is no telling if there were more or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.