I agree that pardon is deplorable, but the other person was armed in that case.

Yes, but the particulars of the case are that the guy decided to seek out a BLM crowd, drove his car up to a side street where the crowd was, shot into the crowd, and managed to kill a guy with a gun. Even WITH clear motive, his behavior to even get into that situation, eyewitness testimony, and a jury conviction, he was pardoned anyway.

> drove his car up to a side street where the crowd was, shot into the crowd, and managed to kill a guy with a gun

Not EXACTLY how it played out.

He was upset the crowd was blocking an intersection. So he ran a red light, driving into the crowd, and then shot a guy who yelled at him for it because the yelling guy was carrying a gun.

> So he ran a red light, driving into the crowd, and then shot a guy who yelled at him for it because the yelling guy was carrying a gun.

So one can't exercise their first and second amendment rights simultaneously in free Texas? Or is that reserved for the good ol' boys?

I wasn't defending him. Just pointing out that the killer did a lot more than "park on a side street and fire into a crowd". He ran a red light to commit vehicular assault, so he could intentionally provoke a reaction, and then killed the first person that he could think of an excuse to.

Texas is also a "constitutional-carry" state. The other person being merely armed should not be material (if Texas were consistent in applying the law.)