What Andrew Kolvet Got Right—and What He Missed: Jurisdiction, Rooftop Access, and the Failure to Advise
Andrew Kolvet, Turning Point USA’s spokesman, publicly addressed the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University just two weeks after the event.
He was offering a defense of the security detail, led by Brian Harpole, assigned to Charlie Kirk. Andrew Kolvet explained that the team had no “jurisdiction” over the rooftops or surrounding areas of the event space, which he framed as a limitation that contributed to the outcome.
At a glance, this might sound reasonable to outsiders—or to those unfamiliar with law enforcement or private security. But deeper reflection reveals a far more serious issue:
Private security has no jurisdiction. Not limited jurisdiction. Not partial jurisdiction. NONE JURISDICTION ANYWHERE.
There is no such thing as “jurisdiction in the immediate vicinity of the principal” when it comes to private-sector protection. The very term “jurisdiction” applies to government agencies. Private protectors operate under civil liability, insurance, and contract law—not legal authority.
So when Andrew Kolvet claimed that the team “only had jurisdiction near Charlie,” he wasn’t drawing a line—he was describing a fantasy.
From a professional executive protection standpoint, this statement exposes a deeper misunderstanding—one shared not only by the public, but by many inside the protection world as well.
In executive protection, jurisdiction is irrelevant. Control is what matters. And control can be created through planning, positioning, redesign, or relocation.
Kolvet’s Framing: Incorrect—and Operationally Irrelevant
Andrew Kolvet did not just misunderstand the limits of jurisdiction—he misunderstood its existence altogether. There is no such thing as private security having jurisdiction, even “around the principal.”
Kolvet’s framing—that the team had jurisdiction near Charlie Kirk but not on the rooftop—is legally and operationally false. Private security contractors, regardless of training or proximity, do not possess jurisdiction in any legal sense. What they do possess is responsibility—contractual, moral, and protective.
But even if Andrew Kolvet had been legally accurate (which he wasn’t), the framing would still fall short.
Protective responsibility is not defined by ownership. It is defined by exposure.
If a rooftop presents a clear and elevated line of sight to the principal, the protection team is responsible for:
- Identifying it
- Denying it
- Occupying it
- Or relocating the principal to avoid it
Whether a police agency owns the roof is immaterial. The assassin didn’t care about jurisdiction. Neither should protectors.
From an exposure standpoint, it doesn’t matter whether the rooftop was public, private, or restricted. What matters is that it offered a lethal vantage point directly facing the speaker’s podium. That makes it a Tactical Observation Post (read more on that here) by definition, whether the protection team wanted to acknowledge it or not.
The Failure to Advise: Where Responsibility Shifts
In protection, when a risk cannot be directly controlled, it must be compensated for with strong advisory authority.
If the rooftop could not be secured, the security team had a duty to tell Charlie Kirk:
- This venue is unsafe as configured
- That rooftop is an uncontrollable threat vector
- We recommend a different speaking location or an architectural mitigation
Protectors are not required to control everything.
They are required to respond when something can’t be controlled.
Andrew Kolvet’s statement implies that the team accepted the rooftop as a fixed condition—one outside their responsibility. That mindset is a fatal flaw in protection. Accepting conditions without redesign, mitigation, or evacuation means accepting exposure as a tolerable risk. In elite executive protection, this is unacceptable.
Advisory failure is one of the most common but least discussed causes of principal injury in private-sector security. Teams that lack the confidence or credibility to challenge event planners, communications staff, or even the principals themselves, often retreat into compliance. This deference is not professionalism—it is abdication.
T.O.P. Doctrine Was Ignored
This site has previously written extensively about Tactical Observation Posts, T.O.P. (read more on that here…)—a core concept in professional protection.
A T.O.P. is:
- A rooftop, window, or structure selected and occupied by a protector
- Used to identify pre-attack behavior, fixation, or abnormal movement
- Positioned specifically to disrupt the attacker’s advantage
The rooftop that Tyler Robinson used was a textbook T.O.P. It was directly in front of the principal. It had uninterrupted line of sight. It was publicly accessible. According to text messages sent by Brian Harpole, students had even accessed it previously.
No jurisdiction was needed to walk up a public staircase and post a trained observer.
Even if entry was questionable, an adjacent rooftop or stairwell could have provided overwatch. With radios and doctrine, a single protector in that position could have detected the shooter before the attack began and advised the team to evacuate Kirk.
Instead, the team opted for “I got you” over integration. And that cost a life.
The Real Error: Police Jurisdiction Thinking in a Protection Mission
Brian Harpole’s team, and now Andrew Kolvet’s framing, both show signs of what this site has described before as the police mindset.
That mindset says:
- “We don’t have the legal authority to go there.”
- “We asked for help and were told it was handled.”
- “Our bubble is just the principal.”
That mindset has no place in executive protection.
The correct mindset is:
- “Can we control it?”
- “If not, can we change the setup?”
- “If not, can we evacuate?”
You do not need a badge to stand on a roof.
You need a reason.
And the preservation of life is the only reason required.
This was not a doctrinal oversight. This was a mindset failure.
It’s also reasonable to assume, from the sequencing of public comments and interviews, that Brian Harpole and Andrew Kolvet likely discussed this point directly. Harpole had mentioned the jurisdiction limitation during his interview with Shawn Ryan, and Kolvet echoed that exact framing on The Charlie Kirk Show two weeks later.
While this cannot be confirmed as fact, it appears consistent with a common pattern in post-incident narrative shaping in the executive protection industry: the head of a security detail offering a legal framing to a communications officer, estate manager, assistant or principal with limited operational background.
In that context, Andrew Kolvet’s public statement may have been less an analysis and more a repetition—a defense mechanism passed upward from someone under intense scrutiny. If so, it raises questions about who really understood the protective mission, and who was left holding the explanation.
Beverly Hills Case Study: Why This Matters Beyond UVU
Now take that same mindset and place it in Beverly Hills.
Imagine a $28 million hillside estate on Oak Pass Road with canyon exposure, drone access, and a known neighbor three houses away with a balcony overlooking the guest area.
Now imagine a protection team that says:
- “We don’t control that neighbor’s property.”
- “We don’t have jurisdiction to fly a drone.”
- “We assume the staff already screened the guest list.”
This is exactly how exposure turns into tragedy.
High-net-worth clients in Beverly Hills must demand doctrine from their providers, not deferral. A PPO license is not enough. An armed guard is not enough. “Experience in law enforcement” is not enough.
The protection standard must be:
- Elevation denied or observed
- Movement architected
- Exposure minimized
- Lines of sight broken
- Environment reshaped
And if none of that is possible: relocation advised.
This is the same doctrine that failed at UVU. And it will fail again in Bel-Air or Malibu if principals continue hiring underqualified teams who defer to badge-based thinking.
Andrew Kolvet’s Public Role: Why His Statements Matter
Andrew Kolvet is not a protector. He is the public face of TPUSA communications. But when he speaks about security on national broadcasts and podcasts, he becomes part of the protective narrative.
When Kolvet frames the security lapse as an issue of jurisdiction, it shapes public understanding. That understanding then becomes precedent for the next event.
The danger isn’t that Andrew Kolvet misspoke.
The danger is that his framing will excuse future protectors from redesigning events, challenging unsafe venues, and owning risks they didn’t create but are paid to solve.
In public-facing protection failures, the commentary becomes part of the doctrine. And if the commentary repeats jurisdiction language, legal limitations, and deferral to law enforcement, it trains the public—and clients—to expect nothing more.
Final Thought: Leadership Is Not a Press Statement
Leadership in protection is not about a microphone. It is about saying the hard thing, early. It is about standing on the roof when no one gave you permission (especially on a roof with student access), because your job is to prevent the shot, not explain it later.
Andrew Kolvet did what spokespeople do: he defended the team. But protection requires more than defense. It requires decision-making.
Jurisdiction didn’t kill Charlie Kirk.
Exposure did.
And in executive protection, exposure is always a choice.
By Michael Braun — Former Special Unit Operator, former Manager at Gavin de Becker & Associates, and Founder & CEO of MSB Protection. Widely recognized as one of the leading experts in executive protection, UHNW estate security, and security auditing for UHNWI in Beverly Hills and across Southern California.