Let's see, he went into a restricted area, donned work gloves and released the anchor. Hmmmm, that's a tough call. The fact that he has sailing experience tells me that he knew exactly what he was doing.
As for 'holier than thou' - are you retarded? Seriously, do you have a learning disability? If someone throws a refrigerator off a bridge into traffic, is that funny to you? How about shooting into a crowd? This idiot went to a fair amount of effort go get through the restricted access area - to do something he knew would cause harm to the ship, and possibly to 1,200 innocent victims. And you want to tell him he's a naughty boy?
So, you cant prove that he intended to hurt or kill everyone. You can only prove that he intended to drop the anchor. The rest is supposition.
If he threw a refrigerator off of one deck into a crowd of people, your analogy would work. But, since you cant prove malice or intent, your analogy fails.
Maybe if you didnt spend so much time calling everyone a retard you would be able to think critically. I never suggested what his punishment should be. I think he should be tried and let the evidence sort it out. You have already sentenced him to death because you believe he intended to hurt and kill, not because it has been proven. I sure hope you are not a judge.