that appellant was seen throwing either a plastic or a glass bottle, which was filled with some liquid, into the air in an arc, and hitting a tree. The object that was thrown was never recovered, and there was no testimony that the officer heard glass breaking. Although Officer Reddick presumed that had the object not hit the tree, it would have hit him, the fact is that the tree was there and Officer Reddick was not hit by the object. An analogous case is D.B.C. v. State, 341 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), where the sole witness to the incident testified that he saw appellant and two other boys throwing “something” in the direction of the train, but did not see what they were throwing. The trial court denied D.B.C.’s motion for judgment of acquittal, but was reversed on d DCA 1984)(<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s
holding a motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon by the manner of its use holding that after being chased by a carfull of angry men it would have been reasonable for mr rivera a private citizen to believe that deadly force was necessary even if only a single unarmed pursuer had approached his nowstopped car because the pursuer and his friends had already threatened riveras life and the lives of other innocent people by engaging in a highspeed chase and throwing deadly missiles namely a bottle of soda and a can of tuna holding that the throwing of a grapefruit at a passing tanker truck thereby shattering its windshield and superficially cutting the driver constituted the crime of throwing a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle holding officers decision to use deadly force to stop truck driver was not objectively unreasonable because officer believed driver posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm to the officers in the pursuit as well as other innocent motorists holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle