I would suggest the honorable thing, almost by definition, is not going to be sucker-punching an unsuspecting person and committing a felonious assault on them. As for the military, I did my bit already. If your idea of honorable is committing felonies, I hope you never join our military.
I've done my stint as well, mister. So much for your hopes. Honor cannot be defined by the legal system of the US or any other country for that matter. I think in some cases the honorable course could be an illegal act. That becomes a pretty broad philosophical debate, which I never wanted to enter, yet here we both are...
If Garry's story is true to the details, then I support and commend his actions and deem the honorable as I see it. I think, however, when you say "sucker-punching an unsuspecting person and committing a felonious assault on them", you confuse the issue by making it sound as if there was a second act committed after the sucker-punch, but in fact the sucker-punch was the felonious act of which you referred and I say was honorable.
I do not believe, encourage, or consider random felonious acts of wanton violence to be honorable, but I believe you knew this, but chose to so phrase your response in an act of debasement both spiteful and without honor. Was that over the top? Yes. The truth is I think we both know what each other meant, but I was merely trying to make a point with my military service reference that an act of violence in, and of itself, is not necessarily without honor.
Lastly, the guy got punched in the face a couple of times for pulling down a girl’s shirt. No reason to be so chary over it.
One alibi: Thank you for your service, David Armstrong.