WASHINGTON - TelAve -- Video recordings by several news organizations show rather conclusively that, had a camera-equipped drone been flying over Utah Valley University [UVU], it would have clearly shown a figure on the roof of a nearby building in time to prevent the murder of Charlie Kirk, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
Chilling Drone Video Reveals Rooftop Location of Charlie Kirk Shooter (https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/other/chilling-d...)
Drone Footage of UVU Drone Scene Where Charlie Kirk Was Assassinated (https://www.newsbreak.com/martinez-gamer-offici...)

Since such drones can be purchased for less than $200 each, and could be operated very inexpensively by a student with little training and paid the typical modest student-assistant rate, UVU's refusal to learn from the recent near-fatal shooting of Donald Trump from a nearby rooftop, and to take this very reasonable precaution, cost Kirk his life; at least in the "but for" sense and standard the law applies in wrongful death and other negligence lawsuits.

More on TelAve News

• NKSCX Responds to "Coordinated Smear Campaign" as Anonymous Critics Emerge Following Regulatory Milestones
• Broadway Gala Honored Also an Italian
• $ONI Listed on MEXC as ONINO Powers Europe's Tokenization Engine Into Public Platform Launch
• AZETHIO Crypto Exchange Whitepaper Reveals MPC-Secured Infrastructure Processing 1.2 Million Transactions Per Second
• CELOXFI Platform Demonstrates Advanced Security Architecture and Regulatory Framework

"But for" UVU's refusal to take this simple and inexpensive (and therefore "reasonable") precaution which the law requires it to take when there is a reasonably foreseeable risk, this influential leader would be alive today.

To demonstrate that the risk of assassination was at the very least reasonably foreseeable, and therefore required appropriate reasonable safety measures, Banzhaf points to the following news report (https://wtop.com/national/2025/09/as-charlie-kirk-crisscrossed-the-country-security-levels-varied-from-venue-to-venue/): . .

So these officers obviously recognized the very significant risk to Kirk's life, and employed a drone for an INDOOR appearance to monitor possible shooting threats during the very brief period it would take Kirk to go to and from the car which brought him to the church.  A different officer recognized the need to use cameras to look for threats at another recent Kirk appearance.

But in stark contrast, UVU apparently failed to perceive the serious threat to Kirk's life - which is far greater outdoors than indoors, says Banzhaf, a former security officer and security consultant - and negligently failed to employ a drone for Kirk's lengthy OUTDOOR appearance, or even cameras to monitor nearby roofs

More on TelAve News

• Work 365 Launches PV 3.0: The Keystone Power App for Microsoft CSPs
• Local consultant shows small businesses how to turn red tape into real money
• Tour Napa Like a Local: Vines of Napa Valley Wine Passport AKA Vine Pass Unlocks Hidden Gems
• Dental Surgical Center Accepts Sedation Patients with Medicaid for MD, WV, PA and DC
• Sloan's Lake Dental Launches New Website to Enhance Patient Experience and Access to Modern Dental Care

The need to use drones to provide protection at outdoor events with controversial speakers, proposed by Banzhaf, is beginning to catch on:
Bipartisan Bill Funds Drone Surveillance After Charlie Kirk Shooting (https://www.webpronews.com/bipartisan-bill-funds-drone-surveillance-after-charlie-kirk-shooting/) ("Following Charlie Kirk's fatal shooting at a Utah Valley University event, lawmakers are advancing a bipartisan bill, led by Rep. Ritchie Torres, to fund drone surveillance for enhanced security at large gatherings. The $500 million measure aims to detect threats like rooftop snipers, amid debates over privacy and civil liberties.") [emphasis added]

Here are excerpts from Kirk's Slaying Revives Push for Tighter Campus Security (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washing...):. .

http://banzhaf.net/  jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com  @profbanzhaf