Charlie Kirk’s family moves to sue UVU, says officials knew of campus rooftop risk ahead of murder

The notice of claim was dated September 9, nearly one year to the day after Kirk was murdered on campus. It was signed by Kirk family attorneys Loren Washburn, Brett Parkinson and Clifford Parkinson of Parkinson Benson Potter. It was filed against the State of Utah, the university, the UVU Police Department and its police chief Jeffrey Long, as well as former UVU president Astrid Tuminez, “and others presently unknown who were involved in the death of Charles Kirk.”

The notice stated, “Through a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions, the UVU Parties created a foreseeable danger to Charlie. Those decisions ultimately rendered Mr. Kirk helpless to the rooftop shooter in an assassination that could have been avoided had the UVU Parties only taken reasonable steps to plan and oversee a safe event, steps outlined below that have been standard practice for other universities hosting controversial speakers.”

UVU parties were accused of failing to understand “the significance of Mr. Kirk’s visit to campus which led to a lack of proper preparation.” The family’s attorneys said that the parties had not conducted a “meaningful risk assessment” before approving the event’s outdoor location, UVU Police “did not have a written security plan for the Tour event,” and UVU parties “did not have a security briefing before the Tour event where the risks associated with unsecured rooftops … could be communicated to other officers.”

The filing criticized the decision to assign only six police officers to the outdoor event, and noted that Chief Long had “requested approval from then UVU President, Astrid Tuminez, to allocate more than six officers—which represented only 25 percent of the UVU police force, but his request was denied.”

The parties also failed to ask for assistance from outside police forces to cover the event that ended up drawing a crowd of around 3,000, the notice stated. “Indeed, the UVU Parties’ planning was so deficient that when Mr. Kirk was shot first responders were not available and Mr. Kirk was transported to Timpanogos Regional Hospital in a private vehicle, not an ambulance.”

The notice also criticized the lack of use of tools at the disposal of local authorities, which Kirk, his security, and TPUSA lacked the power and authority to use. This included establishing a secure perimeter with limited ingress and egress points, using metal detectors, limiting access to parts of campus, real-time monitoring of CCTV footage, and drones.

Regarding CCTV footage, the notice said, “After-the-fact review of the footage at the Preliminary Hearing in the criminal prosecution of the alleged shooter Tyler Robinson showed the shooter running across the roof of the Losee Building to a 'sniper’s nest.' If such footage had been monitored in real-time, Kirk’s tragic death could have been avoided.”

The family’s attorneys said that “none of these safety measures” were taken, “steps only they had the authority to take,” which resulted in “a situation that rendered Mr. Kirk helpless before his assassin.”

The notice also accused officials of ignoring a tip regarding access to nearby rooftops. “TPUSA passed along a student concern about the risk posed to Mr. Kirk by accessible rooftops on campus. Specifically, TPUSA texted, ‘Hello Chief Long – we received this message today from the student group…. “there is student roof access pretty close to where [Charlie Kirk] will be set up at Utah Valley (The Sorensen Student center as a couple of stair cases that go up to the walkways on the roof).”’”

The Turning Point official added in the text, "if this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well. If Possible." The notice said that Long had replied, “I got you covered.” The filing added, “From this exchange, TPUSA and Mr. Kirk could have and did reasonably conclude that the UVU Parties were taking responsibility for risks outside of Mr. Kirk’s immediate security ‘bubble.’”

The notice concluded, “All of these failures placed Mr. Kirk in danger. He was legally entitled to believe that when the UVU Parties approved the Tour event to be held on campus on September 10, that the UVU Parties would only hold the event in a venue and with associated security measures that made the event safe for him to attend and participate in. Instead, Mr. Kirk was exposed to the danger of a rooftop shooter that took his life. In light of the risks known to the UVU Parties, the UVU Parties’ failures shock the conscience—giving rise both to a state-created danger claim under the United States Constitution’s due process clause and a traditional wrongful death claim under Utah law.”

The prospective plaintiffs are Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, and their two young children. The filing also acknowledges potential claims from Robert and Kathryn Kirk, Charlie Kirk’s parents. UVU said it is aware of the notice of claim," and that it "addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes,” per Fox News. The university said, “Our focus remains on supporting our campus community.”

TPUSA Spokesman Andrew Kolvet addressed the failures outlined in the notice, writing, “Reading through the notice of claim filed by the Kirk family against UVU that details one lapse of security after the next has been one of the hardest parts of the last few days. Campus events can be, and are, mostly very safe, but campus PD just has to do the basics.”

He later added, “Charlie deserved the best, and he didn’t get it. But nothing novel or extraordinary was required to keep CK and the crowd safe. The basics were not even close to being covered.”

Speaking with Fox News, he said it was “shocking” to learn from the notice that a nearby rooftop to the event “was known by school officials to be a common hangout of students that would go people watch.” He added, “That's also shocking. That school officials, this is their home. This is their home. They're supposed to know how to control and protect people in their home.”