With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to buck when the first shot was fired, Appellant continued firing his pistol from atop an uncontrolled horse. Indeed, it was under the circumstances just described that Samantha, seated only a few feet from Jonathan and Gabe, was shot. It is therefore easily seen that if the horse had bucked in a slightly different way as Appellant continued to fire his gun, any of the shots could have hit Jonathan or Gabe as surely as the one that hit Samantha. Appellant’s conduct, as indicated by the Commonwealth’s evidence, exhibited an extreme indifference to the value of human life and created a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to Jonathan and Gabe. Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict on these two charges. See Port v. Commonwealth, 906 S.W.2d 327, 334 (Ky.1995) (<HOLDING>); Combs v. Commonwealth, 652 S.W.2d 859, 860-61

A: holding that evidence was sufficient where appellant verbally threatened victim and pointed gun at him and then at a group of people causing everyone to scatter
B: holding that there was sufficient evidence of wanton endangerment where defendant pointed a gun and fired two shots while in a crowded restaurant thereby creating dangerous atmosphere for other diners
C: holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun
D: holding that there was sufficient evidence of wanton endangerment where a bullet came within fifteen feet of a bystander
B.