Charlie Kirk’s family blamed Utah officials for failing to prevent the conservative activist’s assassination at a state university, in a wrongful death notice announced Wednesday that presages a possible lawsuit.

Attorneys for the family said Kirk’s death resulted from a string of “reckless decisions” by officials at Utah Valley University that left him exposed to a rooftop sniper, who fired a fatal shot from more than 400 feet (122 meters) away on Sept. 10, 2025. The university has faced harsh criticism for a lack of key safety measures on the day of the shooting.

Kirk, 31, had been debating students in an outdoor courtyard surrounded by tall buildings and with several thousand people in attendance. An Associated Press review following the shooting showed the campus in Orem did not use several public safety practices that have become standard safeguards at events around the country.

Campus police staffing was far below recommended levels for a school of that size. They also did not fly a drone to monitor rooftops or coordinate with local law enforcement to secure the event attended by about 3,000 people. There were no bag checks or metal detectors.

“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,” Kirk family attorney D. Loren Washburn wrote in the notice to state and university officials.

The document, dated Sept. 9, a day before the one-year anniversary of Kirk’s death, is a required step under state law before his family can file a formal claim or lawsuit. It names the university and its then-president, Astrid Tuminez; the campus police department and its chief, Jeffrey Long; and the state of Utah.

  • 0xDREADBEEF@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Dead on arrival. Supreme court ruled Cops have no obligation to protect anyone. What are they guilty of otherwise then?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

    WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

    The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

    • Uranus_Hz@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      19 hours ago

      They aren’t suing cops (of course) they are suing the university. Because conservatives hate education.