a duty to retreat upon a defendant engaged in unlawful activity. See Andujar-Ruiz v. State, 205 So.3d 803, 806-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing, inter alia, Little, 111 So.3d at 220-22; Dorsey v. State, 149 So.3d 144, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)); cf. Miles v. State, 162 So.3d 169, 171-72 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“[Ujnder the prior Stand Your Ground law, a defendant could assert immunity under section 776.012 even if he or she was engaged in an unlawful act at the time.”); Garrett v. State, 148 So.3d 466, 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“The fact that [defendant] was a convicted felon in unlawful possession of a firearm did not apply to the jury’s consideration of whether [defendant] had a duty to retreat under section 776.012(1).”); Hill v. State, 143 So.3d 981, 985-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Pages v. Seliman-Tapia, 134 So.3d 536, 539
holding that defendant need not establish that he was not engaged in unlawful activity under section 776012 holding that a person engaged in an unlawful activity such as possession of an illegal firearm by a felon would not be entitled to claim immunity under section 7760321 based on the use of force as permitted in section 7760133 holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 holding that the application of section 776012 is not limited to persons not engaged in unlawful activity holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity