Chicken as a perceived threat?

Imagine this: you’re on a plane, minding your own business and doing your psychology homework when suddenly, the man across the aisle erupts in a fit of anger and hits the flight attendant. What is a person to think? Was his anger justified, or was it out of the ordinary and stupid?
According to the Baumeister text, “Anger is an emotional response to a real or imagined threat or provation” (Baumeister 194). Anger is a spectrum, and that spectrum includes both mild irritation and over-the-top rage. In addition, anger makes people do some stupid things. It causes people to make bad decisions, including indulging in risky behaviors. (Note: never drive a car when you’re angry.) They may feel invincible in their angry state, and maybe even powerful. Hence, the risky behavior. However, some believe that anger is motivating. It’ll push someone to take action.
So the question remains: was the passenger on the plane justified?
This angry response would only be justified if there was a perceived threat. What would have been the perceived threat here? The fact that they were out of chicken? Was this a threat to his ego that they didn’t have any more chicken? Did someone threaten him because they were out of chicken??
The answer to the question is no. His anger was not justified. There wasn’t a threat, nor did anyone provoke him. Apparently, the judge who saw his case agreed. Thus, he served his few hours behind bars and paid his $10 court cost.
Maybe he won’t let nature get the best of him anymore.