Some may argue that Romeo killing Tybalt was not honorable, as it was an impulsive act driven by emotion and revenge. However, others may see it as justified due to the circumstances surrounding Tybalt's actions. Ultimately, Shakespeare leaves the interpretation open to individual perspectives.
Mercutio accepts Tybalt's challenge on Romeo's behalf. But it may be debated whether Tybalt would have murdered Romeo had Mercutio not intervened--probably not. The only point where Tybalt was actually on the point of killing Romeo was when Romeo attacked him, and Romeo was the one who prevented Tybalt from killing him.
Tybalt was killed by Romeo, who was angry at Tybalt for killing Mercutio.
The Prince banishes Romeo from Verona for killing Tybalt.
Honorable
Montague says that Tybalt would have died anyway for killing Mercutio. Therefore, he says that Romeo should be pardoned for killing Tybalt, as the law would have sentenced Tybalt to death and Romeo was simply acting out that sentence.
For killing Tybalt
romeo was sent to mantua after killing Tybalt
Yes.
for killing Tybalt
Benvolio is the eyewitness to Romeo killing Tybalt in William Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet." He recounts the events to Prince Escalus, providing a firsthand account of the altercation that led to Tybalt's death.
Killing tybalt
Tybalt is her cousin. Romeo is her husband. Her mother and her nurse are angry at Romeo for killing Tybalt. Should she be angry also or stick by her man?