Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/16/2026 8:46:25 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
The family of Charlie Kirk alleges in a newly obtained notice of claim that a "series of stunning failures and reckless decisions" by Utah Valley University led to the conservative activist's on-campus assassination last year.
Kirk, the co-founder of the conservative student organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot while speaking at an outdoor event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, on Sept. 10, 2025. The gunman fired from the rooftop of a campus building as Kirk was speaking before a crowd of approximately 3,000 people, authorities said.
Utah Valley University was the first stop on Turning Point USA's nationwide tour of college campuses, dubbed The American Comeback Tour. The event "came against a well-known backdrop of risk," stated an emailed notice of wrongful death and survivor claims from the Kirk family's counsel dated Sept. 9 and addressed to the Utah Office of the Attorney General.
The notice, which preserves the family's statute of limitations so that they can bring a lawsuit over Kirk's death, cited high-profile incidents as recent examples of political violence -- including the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump by a rooftop sniper at a 2024 campaign rally, the 2025 murder of a Minnesota state legislator and her husband at their home and the 2022 hammer attack against Rep. Nancy Pelosi's husband.
"Through a series of stunning failures and reckless decisions, the UVU Parties created a foreseeable danger to Charlie," the notice, which ABC News obtained through the Kirk family's counsel, alleged. "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Maybe I’m missing something here, but shouldn’t that have been the responsibility of Charlie’s team to check on the security situation there?
This lawsuit, if successful, will have a chilling effect on colleges permitting controversial speakers (conservatives) from being on their campuses.
Yep. They ought to be suing TPUSA Inc, as he was an employee and officer of that 501(c)(3) non-profit.
"The risk of a rooftop shooter should have been especially top-of-mind given the attempted assassination of President Trump, Charlie Kirk’s close friend and political ally, by a rooftop shooter the previous year."
Yeah....why didn't HIS SECURITY TEAM have this top-of-mind? 🤷♂️🤷🤷♀️
Time will tell to see where this lawsuit goes.
The article does set out failures by the campus police. But not every problem is due to some huge, careless organization. Sometimes the problem is due to just one evil heart.
Perhaps a successful lawsuit here will set off an unintended consequence. Colleges will simply refuse to allow any conservative speakers on campus.
I know they’re already doing that. But now they’d have a good excuse.
Perhaps local law enforcement took on the responsibility for building security, i.e. controlling access.
They did. They were given assurances by UVU. Charlie’s team could only protect areas to which UVU gave them access.
UVU restricted/blocked Charlie’s team from protecting him properly. (I heard/saw this very early on from the head of Charlie’s security)
Exactly my reaction. As the intolerant Left seeks excuses, this will a priority. Kirk himself would oppose it I am quite sure.
Makes the argument that Ericka is all about the money seem less crazy...
In addition, lawsuits give the enemy a reason to ban men as Kirk. I am quite sure Kirk himself would oppose a lawsuit,
I agree. College campus speakers cannot expect to get presidential Secret Service-level security details, including perimeter sweeps and anti-sniper teams when speaking on a public campus. But I think that any suspicious actions should be reported.
I don’t blame them.
Big time.
Depends on exactly which entity is being sued, but yes. And it already is well-established that - for extremely good reasons - there is no enforceable "duty to protect" on the part of law enforcement.
How true.
You are likely right about the consequences but think about the irony— that Conservative speakers are in danger of being murdered on a campus by crazy leftist killers, but Conservative speakers could be banned because they are a liability to the school because they might be murdered by a leftist. Crazy. But, the left wins in this scenario. They terrorism gets them what they want.
I don’t care how thorough a security detail is in ensuring the safety of an invited speaker on campus. If a determined assassin wants to kill the target of that event, he can easily find a way to do it. Distance is the most logical cover, and that was what he used. You can’t logically clear a 400 yard radius effectively unless you subject the campus to literal martial law. There is a cost-benefit analysis to every situation, yes, even to risk of death.
Otherwise we would lower all speed limits to 5 mph everywhere.
From the article:
“”When a TPUSA official informed Chief Long of the concern and asked ‘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.’ Chief Long responded by saying, ‘I got you covered,’” the notice alleged. “This led TPUSA to reasonably conclude that UVU had a plan to address the identified risk and other similar risks (most obviously the risk from other rooftops) without TPUSA involvement.”
When the head of campus security says “I got you covered” in response to a security concern, you pretty much have to trust that they have it covered. And they actually did NOTHING.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.