A rooftop sniper, missing security measures and a grieving family: Could Charlie Kirk’s assassination have been prevented? Family raises new questions

The family of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has accused Utah Valley University and state officials of failing to provide adequate security at the event where he was fatally shot. A wrongful death notice filed ahead of a possible lawsuit alleges that a series of decisions left Kirk vulnerable to a rooftop gunman.

The notice raises fresh questions about event security, campus police staffing and the emergency response following the September 10, 2025, assassination. It also points to a wider concern surrounding the protection of high-profile political figures at public gatherings.

Kirk, 31, was speaking to students at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, when a sniper opened fire from a nearby rooftop. The family’s attorneys argue that the shooting exposed serious weaknesses in the university’s security planning.


The allegations have not been established in court. The university and other named officials could face legal proceedings over the claims.

Family alleges security failures left Charlie Kirk exposed

Attorneys representing Kirk’s parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk, and his widow, Erika Kirk, submitted a wrongful death notice dated September 9, 2026. The filing names Utah Valley University, former university president Astrid Tuminez, the campus police department, police chief Jeffrey Long and the state of Utah.

The document is a required legal step under Utah law before the family can pursue a formal claim or lawsuit against government-related entities. It does not itself establish liability or confirm that a lawsuit will follow.

According to the notice, officials made a series of “reckless decisions” that contributed to the conditions surrounding Kirk’s death. The family alleges that the university failed to take reasonable precautions despite the public nature of the event and the risks associated with hosting a prominent political speaker.

D. Loren Washburn, an attorney for the family, argued that the possibility of a rooftop attack should have received particular attention.

His filing referred to the attempted assassination of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in 2024, when a gunman fired from a rooftop near an outdoor campaign rally in Pennsylvania. Trump, who survived that attack, was a close friend and political ally of Kirk.

The family contends that the earlier incident should have made rooftop surveillance a particularly important part of security planning for Kirk’s appearance.

What happened at Utah Valley University?

Kirk was taking part in an outdoor student event on September 10, 2025. The gathering attracted approximately 3,000 people and took place in a courtyard surrounded by tall buildings.

The setting presented a security challenge: elevated positions around an open public space could provide potential vantage points for an attacker.

An Associated Press review conducted after the shooting examined the university’s security arrangements and identified several practices that were not in place during the event.

Among the concerns highlighted were:

• Campus police staffing that was below recommended levels for a school of its size.
• No drone surveillance to monitor rooftops.
• No coordination with local law enforcement to secure the event.
• No bag checks or metal detectors.

The family’s attorneys say these omissions were part of a broader failure to assess the risks associated with Kirk’s appearance.

The notice alleges that officials did not carry out an adequate security assessment before approving the event. It also claims that no secure perimeter was established and that first responders were not immediately available.

These claims form the basis of the family’s argument that the shooting might have been prevented through better preparation.

Questions over police response and the sniper attack

The shooting occurred while Kirk was debating students in the university courtyard. The gunman fired from more than 400 feet, or approximately 122 metres, away.

Following the attack, campus police chief Jeffrey Long said six officers had been assigned to the event. He also said they coordinated with Kirk’s private eight-person security team.

The university later announced plans to expand its police force.

However, the family alleges that the arrangements were insufficient for the size and profile of the gathering. Washburn wrote that the officials had failed to take safety measures that were within their authority and that the resulting conditions left Kirk exposed to his attacker.

The emergency response is another central issue in the notice.

The family alleges that Kirk was taken to a nearby hospital in a private vehicle rather than an ambulance after being shot. The attorneys argue that the absence of immediately available first responders contributed to the circumstances surrounding his death.

The filing does not establish whether different emergency arrangements would have saved Kirk’s life. That question, along with the allegations about security planning, would need to be examined through evidence and any subsequent legal proceedings.

The university and the officials named in the notice have not been found liable.

Charlie Kirk murder case moves toward trial

While Kirk’s family is pursuing a potential civil claim, the criminal case against the man accused of killing him is moving forward.

Utah resident Tyler Robinson turned himself in the day after the shooting. Prosecutors have charged him with aggravated murder, an offence that could carry the death penalty if he is convicted.

A judge ordered the case to proceed toward trial on September 1, 2026. No trial date had been set at the time of the report.

During a preliminary hearing in July, prosecutors presented evidence they described as overwhelming. This included surveillance footage allegedly showing Robinson on the university campus, DNA testing that prosecutors said linked him to a rifle recovered near the assassination scene and a handwritten note allegedly left for his romantic partner.

The note reportedly read: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it.”

Prosecutors also said Robinson told his romantic partner that he had “had enough of his hatred.”

Robinson’s criminal case is separate from the family’s potential wrongful death action. A conviction in the murder case would not automatically establish civil liability for the university or state officials.

Kirk’s parents and widow have attended the criminal proceedings.

The wrongful death notice, meanwhile, places the university’s security decisions under renewed scrutiny. It raises questions about how outdoor political events should be assessed, whether rooftop surveillance should be part of the planning process and how quickly medical assistance must be available when a public gathering comes under attack.

The family has not specified the amount of damages it may seek.

As the anniversary of Kirk’s death approaches, the legal notice marks a new stage in the aftermath of the assassination. Whether it leads to a formal lawsuit will depend on the family’s next steps and the applicable legal process.

For now, the central question remains one of alleged responsibility: Did the university and state officials take adequate steps to protect Kirk, or did failures in event security leave him dangerously exposed?