Robert Keith English's Lack of Tactical Military Experience Painfully Shows

Robert Keith English, The 19th. He's pointing his weapon at the wall, after pointing it to the camera. That's not how you clear a hallway.

Robert Keith English, also known as Master English, and Kioshi English, is a martial arts trainer at Richmond, VA's Tactical Martial Arts. He has no records of serving in the Marines, Army, or Navy. There are no records of him serving in any tactical capacity in the military.

He likes to claim that he was a Marine, but he never served in the Marines.

Yet, he showcases himself as a martial arts expert drawing experience from his time in the military. The problem for him is that there is no evidence that he served even a day in uniform. But, that doesn't stop him from continuing to show people that he had that expense.

A viewing of the trailer, "The 19th", shows Robert Keith English's lack of tactical experience.

The preview begins with guys breaching a doorway. The number one man points his weapon at the camera, then hooks right. He stood at the doorway area too long. As long as he pointed the weapon towards the camera, he should've continued forward while remaining concealed from potential enemies in the next room.

Instead, he took "forever", waving (flagging the camera) his weapon back-and-forth horizontally, before finally turning to his right. All that was required was one sweep of the weapon eyeball pair. He stood there in from the open door, with a weapon pointing toward the camera for split-second sweeping to the right as he hooked right. He also pointed his weapon at the wall for too long.

Almost instantaneously, the number 2 man would've proceeded toward the camera while remaining concealed.

Now, the number two man enters pointing his weapon toward the camera, but doesn't keep his weapon pointed in that direction. He too turns toward the right. In this part of the film, both the number one and the number two men are pointing their weapons toward their right. No weapon is covering the front of the movement.

Now, the camera may have represented a "wall." If this were true, they would not have needed to continue to cover that area. Both men were pointing toward the opening, neither men needed to "split" in the hallway. If it was evident that the specific section that they were in was "clear", and now they had another opening to worry about, they would've immediately stacked before that opening.

The team walked in front of the opening in a gaggle

From there, someone would of "sliced the pie" (" sidestepped" sideways converting the "unknown" to the "known.") as the number two man did in the film. However, the guy that "sliced the pie" walked sideways in a way that anybody in the other side would have seen his elbows before they saw the rest of him.

The enemy would know about them before our "team" would've learned of the enemy. This would've given the enemy the upper hand.

In an actual scenario, had the enemy been in the other room, this would have initiated a firefight, with the enemy in the room firing the first shots. Or, they could've waited for everybody to start piling into the room. The next room's set up would've allowed the enemy to remain "concealed" from the team entering the room. The door would now live up to its "fatal funnel" label.

Let's take this from another angle.

The guy that "sliced the pie" continued to stand in front of the "opening" that everybody was pointing their weapons too. He was presenting himself as a target. If he would've quickly "sliced the pie" and taken another part of the doorway, concealed, he would've had a good idea of what lay on the other side of the wall that his battle buddy was at.

The team spends too much time in the "fatal funnel"

Yet, he didn't take the opposite position. He just stood in front of the opening. In real life, if someone was waiting for them, hiding behind something in the other room and ready to shoot, the man that just stood in front of the opening would've been shot before he could get any of the action.

As the scene progressed, the number one man shined his light "around parts of the door edges". Then he "carefully" walked to the other side of the door, in front of the number two man, still pointing his weapon at the opening. The number two and the number three men lowered their weapons respectively as the number one man passed in front of them.

That action alone wasted a lot of time, and put the number one man at risk if a target presented himself in from the team and fired at them. It also caused two of the men to lower the weapons, temporarily leaving their sectors uncovered.

At this point of time, all three team members pointed their weapon at the opening. A fourth man did his job and covered the direction they came from.

Meanwhile, the three men stood in front of the opening too long. The enemy would've had a perfect opportunity to take all three down. Again, the door area would've lived up to its "fatal funnel" nickname.

Robert Keith English's Combat Tactics May Get Everyone Killed

Robert Keith English, The 19th. Three men pointing their weapons in the same general direction, a fourth person points to the rear. Meanwhile, the remaining sectors of fire are not covered, and provide the enemy an opportunity to attack their flanks.

On to the next room.

The number one man takes his time walking in, continuously pointing his weapon in one direction. He should've either hooked left or right, not faced forward for a long time. One of the folks behind him would've taken care of that.

You can see that his two battle buddies were pointing their weapons in the same direction, then all three pointed their weapons right. Who is covering their left? Another question is, who is covering from the 6 o'clock position to the 3 o'clock position when all three turned the point there weapons towards the 3 o'clock position?

They bunched up and did not cover a 360° sector around them 

One common theme, that's present in all Soldier and Marine battle drills, involving room clearing, has soldiers covering all directions. At no time do you permit any firing sector to remain unwatched.

Once again, in this scenario, the bad guys could've came up on them from behind and shot all three of them.

Speaking of which, remaining bunched up like that while moving into, and through, the room, allows the enemy to maximize the use of stray rounds. For example, a round intended for the middleman, but misses, could hit one of the men on either side of the intended target.

The bad guy, armed with a machine gun, would not have spent as much time gunning them all down. Even rapid reflexive fire from a rifle or carbine on semi-automatic would take them all out.

As the preview progresses, the fourth man does his own thing. He switches from pointing his weapon in same direction as the other three to now pointing to the 12 o'clock position relative to their original movement into the room. Nobody is watching the fourth man's 6 o'clock through 11 o'clock positions. The fourth man's right side was vulnerable from his 1 o'clock through 2 o'clock positions.

The issues that I point out above, for the first three men, now apply for the fourth man.

The three men headed towards the left have nobody covering their 6 o'clock positions. Nobody's covering from their 10 o'clock through their 11 o'clock positions.

So far, from the beginning of the preview of "The 19th", until this point, the four men have left large gaps in their sectors of fire. We have three weapons pointing in the same direction, with two of the men not having a safe sector of fire because of the men in front of him.

Their movement, from most of this preview, is an example of what not to do 

With three of them moving in a straight line like that, one has to wonder if Robert Keith English learned his "tactics" from a videogame. One of the Black Hawk down video games shows this kind of movement. In the area they were in, there's a different way of moving.

Had Robert Keith English served, in an MOS that had to know room clearing, he would've known that. Back to the film.

If they would've been attacked at this point, these four men would've become casualties in less than a minute, depending on what weapons the enemy would've used.

Robert Keith English's advised tactics would easily be defeated

Their tactics at this point could've easily been defeated. For instance, one person could attack them from an uncovered sector of fire. The surviving "good guys" would've hopefully taken cover and fired back. But, given the trend observed so far, they would've taken a Hollywood "shoot back" approach.

While this is happening, another guy could come in and hit the surviving team members from the side.

This is just a movie preview. If Robert Keith English is providing tactical training to security companies, he's doing them a serious disservice. Again, his "tactics" are examples of what not to do.

If filmmakers are looking for someone with military knowledge, to provide guidance for actions in the movie, they should steer clear away from Robert Keith English.

On through the film.

The first three men walked towards the middle of the room, it takes too long for the fourth man to finally cover the rear, but then he turned around and covers a side. At this point, the 6 o'clock position of both groups of men are still vulnerable. The left flank of the three people in row, as well as the right flank of the fourth man, are vulnerable.

You can see that the three men turned away from the fourth man. This leaves his right flank vulnerable in addition to his back and left flank being vulnerable.

How can they be defeated in this section? Two people can enter from behind them, one of them shoots the fourth guy, while the other one simultaneously squeezes the trigger multiple times firing at the center of mass of the three progressing further into the room.

The examples that I bring up here, of defeating these guys, is just one of many examples that could be used to defeat the "tactics" that this preview demonstrated so far.

Robert Keith English, The 19th. The three guys bunched up reduces waste, on the bad guy's part, if he were to miss his intended target. The stray round has a good chance of hitting one of the other two. Meanwhile, both groups in the above photo have vulnerable 6 o'clock positions, and vulnerable flanks.

Now, when the fourth man pointed his weapon to their new 6 o'clock position, the second and third man should have had their weapons pointed at the 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions respectively. There were enough objects, in the area, that would've allowed hostile's, hiding behind them, to fire at the good guys.

Robert Keith English, keep that weapon pointed down range!

Robert Keith English, The 19th. He lowers his carbine then brings up a pistol. The transition is more than enough time for an attack from the front without the opposition fearing immediate return fire.

 Advance into the new room.

The lead man, looking like Robert Keith English, lowers his weapon temporarily as he enters the room. That's one of the many big "no goes" when doing these operations. The amount of time that weapon is lowered may have been seconds to the lead man. But to those who have done exercises like this repeatedly, that's an eternity.

For the amount of time that he lowered his weapon, the enemy could've fired into him and those behind him. Thus, ending their mission in the preview.

However, the reason he lowers his rifle/carbine is because he wanted to pull out his pistol. He had not fired any rounds from his rifle/carbine. Swapping out weapons like that wasted time and exposed their front to attack.

Also, when you still have rounds for your rifle/carbine, why put that away, in exchange for pistol, when doing a room clearing operation? In situations like this, the pistol is the, "Oh blank, I'm out of rounds, I now have to use my pistol!"

You can see that during this time, his battle buddies are walking in a straight line right behind him.

Their movement through the hallway is an example of what not to do

In a hallway like that, two would've taken a position against one wall, and the other two would've taken a position in the other side. The person on the left would've focused his weapon to anything that could jump out from the right. Person on the right would've done the same in the opposite diagonal direction towards the front left.

The two guys in the back would have been watching the rear using the same concept. Or, one guy would've covered the rear, while the third guy would've covered the middle sector in front of the movement.

Once again, they do not stack up against the door. The lead man standing in the opening makes himself a target. The second man is signaling. In that specific scene, there is no real tactical purpose behind the signaling. When one does signal in this group, a way is done to pass a signal back and forward.

What was he doing with his hand signals?

Robert Keith English, The 19th. The two guys behind are focused on the door, the signals are given well above their plane of view. System of signaling must allow for method for acknowledging receipt of signal.

The number two man, if he were in charge, would pass the signal to the number one man in a way that did not distract the number one man. He would have let the number one man know what the message was. Likewise, the number three man would've passed the signal back to the number four man.

While this message is being passed, all four men would focuse on their sectors. Again, their sectors would cover a 360 sector of fire coverage area.

After the signals are given, the number one man sidesteps into the opening, the man behind him does the same thing as he faces the other direction. The two men behind him are still in the hallway, too far behind them.

In reality, both lead men would've hooked left and right closer to the wall and move all the way almost instantaneously as the two men behind them would've entered the room. One would've covered one of the sectors in the other room, and the other one would've covered the rear.

As the scene progresses, the last two guys entered the room, the last man enters the room and still does not cover their six.

What would he do if he dropped the flashlight during a firefight?

Right after that scene, we see the number one man doing both, holding a flashlight up and using his pistol. Why do that when the carbine used earlier had a mounted light? His attention is now focused to flashing his light and pointing his pistol. What is he going to do if he were to drop the flashlight in the middle of a firefight?

Robert Keith English, The 19th. His carbine had a mounted tactical light. With the switch, he has to focus on two things, light and aim. What would he do if he were to drop that flashlight in a firefight?

Meanwhile, his buddies are in a straight line behind him and not focusing on covering their sectors.

You see a scene where they entered the hallway. The first man is pointing down the hallway. The second man, instead of coming in to cover the other direction, quickly looks back then quickly turns around and follows the first guy.

Once again, as they are going down the hallway, they follow each other in almost a straight line as opposed to taking parallel positions against the walls. As the scene progresses, the number two guy stops. He looks away from the direction that he's pointing his weapon. At no time did he stop the number one guy, who continues on.

Instead of the erroneous method that they used, he would signal the number one guy, so that the letter could provide him cover. He didn't. He allows the other two guys to continue walking on down the hall. This time, the team of four is split. In a large area like that, you do not want to split your team.

More than four people were needed to clear the rooms shown in the preview

In reality, if you're taking a large area like that, you'd use a lot more than just four people. Once your teams deploy into the building, they would work with each other. Team members would remain with their fellow members and do everything they can to remain in contact and together.

The guy, looking like Robert Keith English, does what apparently is a signal. He does it with his hand holding the pistol, waving the pistol down. With the way they have been moving, there is a good chance that he flagged (pointed the pistol at the other two) the others. Instead of stopping the guy ahead of him, he continues walking down the hall with him. They leave the other two behind.

They enter another room using the same lack of tactics that they've been using entering new rooms.

They continue in a straight line, or nearly straight line, instead of taking up positions on opposite sides of a hallway to walk parallel to each other. Either way, they did not effectively covered their sectors.

Robert Keith English, Tell Them to Maintain Team and Sector Integrity!

They get complacent right when they should've had their guards up

They come up to a woman sitting in the middle of a hallway.

Robert Keith English, The 19th. The lead man should have kept his distance, and tried verbal interaction. The other guy would've provided cover. The other two should've also been there to provide cover.

Almost immediately, they let their guard down. One guy gets too close to her and gets tackled. The other guy failed to keep his weapon aimed at her in the middle hallway.

Around this time, a man comes out of the shadows and attacks the partner. There was enough time, between the time the second bad guy comes out of the shadows, and the time that the partner could've fired some rounds into him.

In reality, neither would've approached the woman. With her stance not known, the two guys "tactically" moving down the hall would've kept their distance, and kept their weapons pointed at her. This is based on the scenario in the video.

Also, in reality, all four would stayed together. Two guys in the front would continue to cover their sectors diagonally. The third guy would've continued to cover their six. A fourth guy would've tried to interact, verbally, from a standoff position, with the woman sitting in the middle of the hallway.

They would've had more than enough to overpower the two bad guys had they stuck together.

As they approached the woman, they still would've kept their distance. At least one of them would've kept his weapon pointed on the woman sitting on the floor while the others covered their sectors of fire.

As the preview progressed, a fight ensues. They temporary regain control of the situation, then take the attention away from the opposition. They could've at least "cuffed" the opposition that was down, or used something to restrain his/her movement.

Robert Keith English, The 19th. Where are the other two? Now the other guy maintains security, instead of turning things around by helping his buddy. Had the other two been there, they could've provided security while two guys overcome the bad guy.

The opposition regains control of the situation. The other two team members are nowhere in sight as the current pair gets ambushed. During the second struggle, the man had plenty of time to get off a couple rounds on the attacker. He did nothing.

If this scene would've taken place in reality, one event would've been consistent. Those guys that attacked the two men would've gotten shot. The four people would've stayed together, covered their sectors, and would've rapidly shot anybody that tried to come at them from the shadows.

This is where reflexive fire comes in handy prior to being in a situation like this.

This is just a very simple, very basic, look at the military/police tactics that Robert Keith English contributed to this film. Those tactics that they used are a reflection on Robert Keith English. They painfully show that Robert Keith English has no relevant military experience as it relates to this film.

Yet, he is showcasing himself as having military experience in order to attempt to get people to hire him as a consultant on fighting films.

Robert Keith English, The 19th. More than enough time to put rounds in the bad guy.

Driving a Vehicle as a Reflection of Character, Bank Parking Lot

Changed location to grab this spot; common courtesy, and common sense, dictated that he remained where he was in order for the older people, in incoming cars, be allowed the convenience of parking closer to the bank. Two of the people, arriving in incoming traffic, were senior citizens. 

There are four or five vehicles, in motion, but halted, waiting for another vehicle to take action. The place? The Navy Federal Credit Union at 981 Providence Rd., Virginia Beach, VA.

One car enters from the East, turns right onto the front of Navy Federal Credit Union. Two to three cars are in motion in front of the bank, from the opposite direction. Vehicles in both directions are stopped; however, as another vehicle is trying to enter the path from the parking overflow.

Normally, when a vehicle leaves a parking area, and there are other vehicles in the area that this vehicle is entering, the vehicle is leaving. Not this one. The other vehicles were waiting for this one driver to leave the parking overflow, and to leave the bank's vicinity in general.

This driver, coming from the overflow, held up the other cars for two to three minutes.

The other drivers assumed that this guy, Gadson flag License Plate number 371 2TM,
 was leaving. He wasn't. Instead, he drove straight into a parking lot that opened up in front of the building.

Increasing traffic danger to get one's way

The driver that did this took a lot of risk, and held smooth flow of traffic up in order to do this. Realistically, this move was neither safe nor considerate.

The vehicle that was just entering from the East saw the vehicle that pulled out from in front of the building. However, that driver judged that there was not enough time to efficiently enter in that vehicle's place. Neither did the vehicles coming in from the west.

Although the lead vehicle, coming in from the west, could've safely entered that newly vacated parking spot, he had his left turn signal on. Too much time needed to maneuver into the parking lot, given the number of moving vehicles in the parking area. Using common courtesy, that vehicle wanted to park into the overflow. The car coming in from the east switched signal from right turn to left turn.

With the lead vehicle coming from the west wanting to park elsewhere, the next vehicle that would've been able to park in that spot safely was the car coming in from the east.

Instead, the driver that stopped traffic drove into the newly vacated spot. The person that did this was not a customer. He was waiting for someone that may have been inside the bank.

The disabled and the elderly have priority on "front row" parking lots

Common courtesy dictates that the parking spots in front of the building are reserved for bank customers. The disabled and the elderly get priority parking adjacent to the building.

Everybody else, able bodied, should have no problem parking further from the building, or in the parking overflow. If the passenger, for this errant driver, completed his/her business in the building then exited, the errant driver could've shortened the distance, traffic permitting.

This driver; however, did not care. He wanted his way at the expense of common sense, common courtesy, and basic traffic safety.

What does this say about his personality?

The Gadson flag is one of the flags that the militia units used during the American Revolution. It symbolizes people coming together to preserve freedom and to stand for their rights. It's a symbol representing success in cooperating numbers as opposed to failure among individuals attempting the same thing.

Unfortunately, a small percent of the population hijacked this concept.

This small percent of the population believes that it is beneath them to have to follow rules and laws designed for cooperative coexistence. Many consider these rules/laws as "oppressive" to individual freedoms. Many of these "anti-capitalists", as well as these "antigovernment" radical groups use the Gadson flag as a symbol.

Unfortunately, this puts them in position to spoil the message of the greater group of patriots who do use the Gadson flag license plate.

The fact that this driver, Gadson flag License Plate number 371 2TM, would ignore common sense and common courtesy, and violate safe driving practices, speaks volumes. It indicates a good possibility that this person has had a run-in with the law before.

This run-in with the law could involve a traffic violation, or some other law violation. Each of these violations would have been cited in response to this knucklehead's doing what he wanted to do at the expense of what he was supposed to do.

This person refused to learn from his mistakes. In fact, there's a good chance that he does not see these as his mistakes. Instead, he sees this as him "exercising" his God-given rights. Seen from that angle, society, the police force in the field and the key players in the court system, "get in his way".

The Gadson flag symbolizing some people's belief that they could do what they want

This knucklehead's use of the Gadson flag license plate reflects his misguided assumption. A revision of the current government, or its removal in the hands of a "revolution" would "zero out" this knucklehead's infractions in society. This is if he has any infractions recorded.

Additionally, this "revolution" would "create" a government that "recognizes true freedom." Except, in this case, "true freedom" isn't really the freedom that our founders fought for, nor the freedom that we have in mind.

In the minds of idiot drivers like this, that "true freedom" represents their doing what they want to do at the expense of others.

Everybody else must "bend over backwards" in order for these drivers to do what they want. In other words, he is all for "cooperative coexistence" provided that it does not get into his way. The moment society gets into his way, the rest of the world is supposed to "stop" and allow him to do what he wants.

With this kind of attitude, and the behavior that this person displayed, he is bound to get into a future involvement requiring the police, or to cause another accident. He is bound a future run-in with the law.

Unfortunately, he fits the profile of people that don't learn from their mistakes. That experience will further entrench him into his misguided notion that he is "right" and that society should just cave to his will.