No, seems about right. You could say they're asking a clarifying question but they put the aggressor in a vacuum, claiming that all that's happening is taking frustration out on 'inanimate objects':

He's harmlessly taking out his feelings on inanimate objects and then, as far as I can tell, moving on with his day. As long as he pays for the rackets after, what's the issue?

This is a bad faith argument, because it's implying that there's nothing else going on when it's obvious that's not the case. This is a public event with other people nearby and the person is a fully-grown adult. It's reasonable to expect fully grown adults to be able to control their emotions without throwing a tantrum, especially in public.

Anyone that points out that this is something a toddler would do (or it's wasteful, it's potentially dangerous to people around him, etc) gets flooded with contrarian responses along the lines of "no it's fine if I want to break stuff when I'm angry you're just being a delicate snowflake"