Document text
COMMENTARY by Benny Johnson — "🚨Charlie Kirk Family Launches MASSIVE Lawsuit Against State of Utah, University Cops For CK Killing…" (published 2026-09-17).
This is third-party opinion/analysis ABOUT State of Utah v. Tyler James Robinson — NOT the court record. It is indexed for comparison against the primary transcripts/filings. Transcript is the YouTube auto-caption track (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWbrfCWgZXA) — verbatim ASR.
Retards on the internet are going to be pissed off at this. Here is the lawsuit dated September 9th, 2026 on behalf of the Charlie Kirk family. Suing the University of Utah, their police department, and their state, the state of Utah, for the wrongful death of Charlie Kirk because they did not protect the rooftop, and because they did not protect Charlie Kirk, and woefully understaffed the event on which Charlie Kirk was killed. They claimed that they had the rooftop covered, and that they would be preparing for any type of contingency, and they didn't do that. They didn't monitor the cameras at Utah Valley, and now they are being sued for the wrongful death of Charlie and security failures. Charlie Kirk's family alleges that University of Utah knew rooftop security risk before the assassination and legal filings. The notice claimed police had no written security plan, 3,000 spectators, and only six officers, which is, again, and just criminal mismanagement, uh, bordering on malevolence, you'd have to assume. Uh, but certainly incompetence, and there is no distinguishing between the two of them, honestly, at a great enough scale, and this was a great scale. A reminder that a year earlier, almost to the month, that President Trump was shot from a rooftop by a lone gunman, and that President Trump was hit in the head with a bullet, that everybody saw the gunman, just like people had seen Tyler Robinson. The gunman was a lumbering, lurking weirdo, and was not particularly that skilled, and if uh, they had had a couple of drones or overwatch on the rooftop at all, then they would have been able to easily eliminate this threat and neutralize it. If there had been a single officer on the Losee building rooftop, if there had been a single officer standing on the AGR glass factory, that's where Trump was shot from, then you would be able to entirely diminish the capacity for an assassin to have shot either Charlie or Trump. How about drones? If there had been drones flying in the air, you would have had at least the ability to see that there was a man with a gun on the roof and then take the principal away, right? Immediately exfiltrate President Trump off the stage. They can do that in seconds. They literally jump on him and drag him off the stage. He doesn't get a say in the matter. Same thing with Charlie, you know? They had the same operation. And while Charlie had a security team that was 20 to 40 guys deep wherever he rolled, you know, he spent a fortune on security, and they don't have legal access to the rooftops in places like UVU. That belongs to the campus. So, the best they can do is protect from the ground, and I think there's like a double-edged sword here. Let's go ahead and read and we'll see what they claim. Charlie Kirk's family filed notice of claim, precursor to a lawsuit, against the Utah Valley University, state, and key individuals involved in campus leadership and security decisions, alleging that their failures led to Turning Point USA founder's wrongful death. The risk of a rooftop shooter should have been especially top of mind given the attempted assassination on President Trump, Charlie Kirk's close friend and political ally. The rooftop shooter in previous year, reads the filing. In the alleged exchange cited in the filing, Turning Point USA organizer told UVU police and Jeffrey Long that UVU students had informed them that the rooftop access was pretty uh close to where uh Kirk would be that day, uh across from the Losee Center. Uh if it is true, it would be nice to either have control or access to the roof. One of my guys there up as well, Turning Point staff said. I've got you covered was the chief of police's response in a uh now widely publicized text message. Uh Brian Harp Hole went on Shawn Ryan Show and like went through all these texts and the communications with the campus police. Nobody's disputed them. Kirk, 31-year-old father, was killed there. Uh his murder was entirely preventable. In fact, it would not have happened if the state of Utah and UVU had followed through on the stated security promises, which included protecting the rooftop surrounding the quad where Charlie was speaking. Uh those failures not only robbed of Charlie Kirk of his life, but also robbed the family of husband, son, brother, father, and packed compound the rest of their lives. The prospective plaintiffs' filing, uh Kirk's widow Erica, uh and their children are on the actual filings. It's acknowledged potential claims for the parents. Uh the filing does not specify monetary damages. In addition to the wrongful death claim, it also raises claims of state-created danger under the US Constitution. Uh they were aware of the notice of claim. They had and that it addresses legal matters consistent with our established process. Our focus remains on supporting the campus community. Okay, so they know I think that they're quite screwed here. Uh Listen, man. I don't know how you I don't know how you get out of this one. There were systemic security failures and they upset and frustrate me to this day. They make me very angry. It would have been extremely preventable. Charlie's death was probably the most preventable death uh in American history. Uh when it comes to the actual understanding of the risk assessment uh and then the prominence of the speaker himself and the threats against him it becomes like quite clear that you need to lock down a space, especially if he's going to be standing in the middle of a freaking field. Like the the Charlie events are I'm going to sit in the middle of this field right here for hours. And that's where I'm going to be. And I'm going to be exposed in the middle of this field. There is a little tent over me, but like I'm going to be sitting in this field. And you'll be able to walk right up to me. And that's a, you know, same with Donald Trump. I'm going to stand in the middle of this field in Butler for hours giving a speech. And you can literally walk right up to Trump. You know, oh, it's a Trump event. There was there's security and you get wanded and you have to go through the metal detectors. Nope. We were there in Butler. You could walk right up to the fence line. You didn't have to go through any security at all. You could literally walk right up to the fence line and stare right at President Trump. A trained assassin army from Iran or some terrorist breakaway group could have stood there with 1,500 gunmen with you know, munitions in coolers, you know, carried right up to the fence line and had a field day. I mean, he was the most unprotected, most unprofessional, suicidal, honestly, event. You we just got to get smarter. And so lawsuits like this, I'm totally in favor of because lawsuits like this show that you like if you were going to agree to have events like this on your campus and your school, you need to get serious about protecting the people who And again, at some point do you attribute gross incompetence to actual malevolence? Like at some point or are there people at University of Utah that just decided not to protect Charlie Kirk? Will we find that out? What about the Secret Service? They underfunded and cut President Trump's security. They clearly didn't do 15,000 different things leading up to the Butler rally that they should have done to protect Donald Trump. They didn't do it. They refused to do it. They didn't even communicate with local law enforcement. Local law enforcement saw the gunmen, couldn't even communicate with the Secret Service. They didn't have any channel. It was designed to fail is the way that I look at it. I'm not sure I'm going there exactly with >> Breaking right now. The fan >> But what I will say is that you know, why would the fan leak? If there's some grand conspiracy about who killed Charlie Kirk or why Charlie Kirk died? Why would they be suing? You know, they they wouldn't be opening themselves up to discovery and to the you know, very threaded and detailed examination of every single decision and text message and action that day. Had there been some type of like grand conspiracy by the Jews in the Egyptian plane with the French Legion to kill Charlie, okay? You know, it was all it was all plotted of course by Turning Point USA. Like This is not the actions of people that are guilty of some type of grand conspiracy to murder Charlie as has been peddled to some of the lowest IQ people on the internet for profit from the Charlie Kirk murder industrial complex. So, just a final, you know, note on all of this. But anyway, this is uh uh you know, this is obviously a big story and it's going to change a lot of things. Uh we encourage uh this lawsuit to move forward. The UVU police straight up lied about covering the roof. The whole thing would never have happened if UVU had actually done his job. Uh not only did they refuse to do it, they actually refused to let Charlie security team do it. And Charlie would still be alive today if UVU had done their job. A single officer on the roof is able to solve this problem. The gunman doesn't get near the roof. The gunman can't take the shot if there's an off just one officer up there. They weren't even monitoring the cameras. You know, you can see the guy. You can see Tyler Robinson running around donking all over the roof. You can see him up there. Lumbering across the rooftop just like Thomas Matthew Crooks lumbers across room to Thomas Butler. Charlie filed the lawsuit. You can see him stand up in the video after firing and then run once he's confirmed he'd hit Charlie. The plan was meticulously executed. Well, So, justice for Charlie Kirk. And please, for the love of God, like start protecting people properly. It's your boy Benny. Like, share, and subscribe. Pray for the