A legal notice targeting Utah Valley University landed on September 9, positioning the family of Charlie Kirk to pursue wrongful death claims tied to the conservative activist’s killing on campus one year earlier.
Attorneys representing the family — Loren Washburn, Brett Parkinson and Clifford Parkinson — filed the document naming the State of Utah, UVU, its police department, Chief Jeffrey Long, and former university president Astrid Tuminez as parties potentially liable for the death.
Central to the claim is an argument that university and law enforcement decisions amounted to a “state-created danger” under constitutional due process protections, paired with a traditional wrongful death theory under Utah statute.
The document paints a picture of an event approved without adequate scrutiny.
No formal risk assessment preceded the decision to hold the gathering outdoors, according to the filing, and officers assigned to the scene never received a briefing on rooftop-related threats.
Police staffing numbers feature prominently in the allegations. Just six officers covered an event that swelled to an estimated 3,000 people.
Chief Long had sought authorization to bring in additional personnel — a request equal to roughly one-quarter of the department’s total force — only to have it rejected by then-president Tuminez.
No outside agencies were brought in to supplement coverage, the notice states.
That staffing shortfall carried into the emergency response itself: after Kirk was shot, no ambulance was on hand, and he was instead rushed to Timpanogos Regional Hospital by private vehicle.
Surveillance capability sits at the heart of the family’s argument.
The filing lists specific measures the university allegedly never used — a locked-down perimeter, metal detectors, restricted building access, live camera monitoring, and drone surveillance — all tools available only to campus authorities, not to Kirk’s personal security team.
Video evidence introduced during a preliminary hearing for accused shooter Tyler Robinson reportedly captured him traversing the roof of the Losee Building en route to what the notice calls a “sniper’s nest.”
Attorneys argue that real-time review of that same footage might have stopped the attack before it happened.
Perhaps most striking is a text exchange cited in the filing between Turning Point USA and Chief Long.
The organization flagged a tip from students about stairway access to rooftops near the Sorensen Student Center, close to where Kirk would be speaking.
A TPUSA representative wrote to Long, “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.” Long responded, “I got you covered.”
Attorneys say that exchange led Kirk’s camp to reasonably believe university and police officials had assumed responsibility for threats beyond his immediate protective perimeter — a belief the notice suggests proved fatally mistaken.
The claim’s language grows pointed in its conclusion, stating that Kirk “was legally entitled to believe” the event would only proceed with security sufficient to keep him safe, and that instead “the UVU Parties’ failures shock the conscience.”
Erika Kirk, the activist’s widow, along with the couple’s two young children, are named as the primary individuals prepared to bring suit.
The filing leaves open the possibility that Kirk’s parents, Robert and Kathryn Kirk, could join as plaintiffs as well.
University administrators responded briefly to the filing’s emergence.
A UVU statement confirmed awareness of the notice and indicated the matter would proceed “consistent with our established processes,” according to Fox News.
The statement added that the school’s attention remains on “supporting our campus community.”
Turning Point USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet offered his own assessment of the allegations in public remarks, describing the process of reviewing the notice as painful.
He characterized the described lapses as failures of routine procedure rather than any extraordinary security challenge.
Kolvet argued that protecting Kirk and the crowd required no unusual measures, only adherence to standard campus safety practices that he says were largely absent that day.
He also voiced surprise that university officials reportedly already knew the rooftop near the event functioned as a casual gathering spot where students would watch activity below — information he suggested should have prompted greater caution from a school operating on its own grounds.
Continue Scrolling for the Comments
Leave a Comment