Police were ‘Warned’ Before Charlie Kirk was Killed

Turning Point USA warned Utah Valley University police about student access to rooftops near Charlie Kirk’s speaking event shortly before he was fatally shot from a nearby roof, according to a new legal filing from Kirk’s family.

The previously undisclosed warning is among a series of allegations contained in a notice of claim filed Sept. 9 — one day before the first anniversary of Kirk’s Sept. 10, 2025 assassination at the university in Orem, Utah.

The filing is a legal step that preserves the family’s ability to pursue a wrongful-death lawsuit against Utah Valley University, the state of Utah and several university officials. It does not by itself establish that the university or its employees were legally responsible for Kirk’s death. (Reuters)

According to the filing, someone associated with Turning Point USA contacted UVU Police Chief Jeffrey Long before the event after receiving a message from a student group warning that students could access a rooftop close to where Kirk was scheduled to speak.

The concern specifically referenced the Sorensen Student Center.

“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,” the TPUSA representative wrote, according to the filing.

Long allegedly responded: “I got you covered.”

Kirk’s family argues that response gave Turning Point officials reason to believe university police were addressing the rooftop concern.

The warning concerned the Sorensen Center. Prosecutors say the gunman ultimately fired from the roof of the nearby Losee Center, roughly 400 feet from where Kirk was speaking.

Kirk, 31, was addressing a crowd of approximately 3,000 people in an outdoor courtyard when he was struck by a single gunshot at approximately 12:23 p.m.

Authorities later said the shooter had positioned himself on a nearby university building before fleeing.

Watch the Utah Department of Public Safety’s official press conference following the shooting

The Kirk family’s attorneys now contend that the university failed to adequately address several foreseeable security risks before the event.

Among the allegations in the eight-page notice are that UVU did not conduct a sufficient threat assessment, did not develop an adequate written security plan, failed to secure surrounding rooftops and assigned too few police officers to an event involving a nationally known and controversial political figure.

The filing also alleges that Police Chief Long sought permission to assign more officers to the event but was denied.

That allegation has not been independently established in court.

What has been independently documented is that only six uniformed campus police officers were assigned to the event, along with an unspecified number of plainclothes officers.

There were no metal detectors or bag checks, and an Associated Press investigation conducted after the killing found that university police did not use drones to monitor surrounding rooftops or coordinate with outside law enforcement to secure the event.

The AP investigation also found that UVU’s security preparations differed substantially from precautions used at some of Kirk’s previous appearances.

Less than two weeks before his death, for example, Kirk spoke at an event in Visalia, California, where authorities spent several days preparing, deployed approximately 60 law-enforcement personnel and used a drone to monitor surrounding rooftops, according to the AP.

UVU Police Chief Long acknowledged on the day of the shooting that security preparations had failed to prevent the attack.

“We train for these things,” Long told reporters following the shooting. “You think you have things covered and these things, unfortunately, they happen.”

The new legal filing goes further, arguing that Kirk’s death could have been prevented had the university taken additional precautions.

Attorney Brett Parkinson, representing Kirk’s family, told Newsweek that the family believes the shooting followed a series of “stunning failures and reckless decisions.”

Those claims will ultimately have to be tested through the legal process if the family moves forward with a lawsuit.

Utah Valley University has not conceded wrongdoing.

“We are aware of the notice of claim,” a university spokesperson said. “UVU addresses legal matters consistent with our established processes. Our focus remains on supporting our campus community.”

The university has previously declined to provide detailed answers about some aspects of the security operation while outside reviews were underway.

The notice names the state of Utah, Utah Valley University, the university police department, Long, former UVU President Astrid Tuminez and potentially other state actors as prospective defendants.

The filing comes as the separate criminal case against accused gunman Tyler Robinson continues.

Robinson, now 23, surrendered to authorities the day after Kirk was killed.

Prosecutors charged him with aggravated murder and several additional offenses, including obstruction of justice and witness tampering. They are seeking the death penalty.

Read the Utah County Attorney’s charging document and probable-cause allegations

The charging document alleges DNA consistent with Robinson was discovered on the trigger of the suspected murder weapon and that he later communicated with his romantic partner about the shooting.

Those allegations remain part of the prosecution’s case against him.

Robinson has pleaded not guilty.

On Sept. 1, 2026, Judge Tony Graf ruled prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence for the aggravated-murder case to proceed to trial. The ruling did not determine Robinson’s guilt; it found that prosecutors had met the lower probable-cause threshold necessary to move forward.

A trial date has not yet been set, with another hearing expected in October.

Meanwhile, the civil filing creates a separate legal battle over whether the university and state bear any responsibility for the conditions surrounding Kirk’s assassination.

The family’s most striking new allegation is the warning about rooftop access before Kirk ever took the stage.

Whether that warning and the university’s response amount to legal negligence will now be one of the central questions if the family proceeds with its planned lawsuit.