35. "Rick" on the security team as a possible shooter
This site makes no claim that Rick fired, had any device, triggered anything, knew Charlie would be killed, or caused the death. This site makes no claim that anyone on the security team, the AV team, or TPUSA staff knew of, placed, triggered, or removed any device, or fired. Tyler Robinson is claimed to be the shooter; he is charged, not convicted, has not entered a guilty plea, and is presumed innocent.
The issue in plain words
Charlie Kirk had a private security team around him at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025. After the killing, people online studied the video frame by frame, and some claims began naming individual team members. One of those names was a man called Rick.
This page exists because that claim is part of the public argument, and a reader trying to understand the case will run into it. It is important to be precise about what this site does and does not say.
The only observation this site repeats about Rick is this: it appears he pulled on his shirt sleeve, and that looks interesting. That is all. This site makes no claim that he fired, had any device, triggered anything, knew Charlie would be killed, or caused the death.
The Security Team hub describes a hybrid arrangement that day: a TPUSA-funded private close-protection detail plus a limited UVU campus-police contingent. Open-source reporting after the event put about six uniformed campus officers on a crowd of roughly 3,000, with rooftops treated as outside the private bubble. Greg Shaffer, who had worked Kirk's protection in earlier years, said publicly that six officers were not enough even for crowd control and that a rooftop officer would have been the obvious deterrent. Who stood where, and what the written plan was, are process questions. They are not a finding against any named guard. The contracted firm is profiled at Integrity Security Solutions.
Side by side
| Fed Slop Side | There was no shot from security. Security did its job. Naming staff is harassment of the family's detail. |
| Citizen Investigators | Online claims named him. The only observation this site repeats: it appears he pulled on his shirt sleeve, which looks interesting. This site makes no claim that he fired, had any device, triggered anything, knew Charlie would be killed, or caused the death. |
The fed slop side, in full
The official side says the security team did what security teams are trained to do. When the sound came, they moved, got Charlie out of his chair, and got him into a vehicle and on the way to a hospital within about a minute. That first minute is reconstructed on Immediate Aftermath: 10 Minutes After the Shot. No video shows anyone on the team firing. On this view, naming individual guards online exposes private people to harassment for doing their jobs on the worst day of their lives, and it distracts from the man the state has charged.
The last ten minutes before 12:23, including where close protection stood around the canopy, are reconstructed on 10 Minutes Before the Shot. Within days of September 10, a former contractor for the kind of firm TPUSA hires went on a large YouTube channel and said the sleeve motion was a man loosening a tight shirt so he could move — "adjusting his sleeves," not a signal and not a trigger. Official-side commentators treat any named-guard theory as ghoulish. The security chief later described the extraction on a long podcast: get Charlie into the SUV, keep the door from closing on a tall man, drive. A man called Rick is described in that public account as riding in the vehicle and holding the chief's shirt so he would not fall out while first aid was applied. On this view that is a rescue, not a plot, and repeating a first-name from the video is harassment of the family's detail.
What citizen investigators say
Citizen investigators say the security arrangements that day deserve questions as a matter of process. Reported gaps include no counter-snipers, no medical standby, and an unwatched rooftop line of sight. Those questions are about planning and procedure. They are collected on No Counter-Snipers and Perimeter & Rooftop Failures. They are not claims about any individual's intent. Event Security Standards is the reform page for that gap.
On the specific claim about Rick, this site goes no further than the single observation above. A still frame or a short clip cannot show what anyone was thinking. Online posts from the afternoon of September 10 onward named a guard, pointed at a sleeve, and built shooter or detonator stories from it. Later posts still do. This site does not adopt those stories. It does not claim he fired. It does not claim he had a device. It does not claim he triggered anything. It does not claim he knew Charlie would be killed. It does not claim he caused the death.
The last ten minutes before the shot, including where the detail stood, are on 10 Minutes Before the Shot. The day-of clock is on September 10, 2025. Investigators also ask about the instruction not to interview witnesses until federal agents arrived — Witness Interviews Blocked — and about the vehicle that left the courtyard, later reported destroyed, on SUV Destroyed and SUV Transporting Charlie. Those are records questions. They are not a claim against Rick.
The broader conclusion of most investigators is that the fatal event was an explosive at the microphone, as on the Exploding Mic hub. That conclusion is about a device and how Charlie was killed. This site does not connect it to Rick or to any member of the security team. The Roof file is the place for the rooftop figure. Proof Not Tyler is the place for why the charging package does not close. Neither depends on naming a guard.
Local reporting months later still had no finished after-action on UVU police. A former campus officer on duty that day said he was not aware of a pre-event rooftop check. The head of the private detail said he asked about rooftops and was told they were covered. Those are planning facts. They do not identify a shooter in the tent. Readers who want the extraction clock should use the day-of timeline, not a first-name from a viral still.
When this fight ran
- 10–13 September 2025. Slow-motion tent video spreads within hours. Sleeve-pull and "security was in on it" posts appear the same afternoon and evening. A former contractor's "just adjusting his sleeves" rebuttal lands within three days.
- Mid-September through November 2025. Extraction podcasts and local reporting on the SUV roster. Official-side line: the detail saved what it could; stop naming staff.
- 2026, ongoing. Named-guard variants keep circulating next to microphone and second-angle threads. Official-side commentators treat them as harassment of the widow's detail. This site's position does not move: the sleeve looks interesting, and that is the whole observation.
Why it matters for Tyler Robinson
The state's case says one man on a roof fired one shot. Any serious question about what happened at the tent, where Charlie was, bears on whether that account is complete. The fair way to pursue that is through records and full video, not by naming individuals online. Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted. Closing the file by shaming people who look at tent-side video is the opposite of testing the charge.
What would settle it
- Full, native, multi-angle video of the tent area from the moment of the shot.
- The security team's written post-incident reports and positions at the moment of the shot.
- Sworn testimony from security staff about what they saw and heard.
- The event security plan, including rooftop coverage and medical standby.
Read more on this site
- Security Team — who provided security that day and how it was arranged.
- No Counter-Snipers — the reported planning gaps.
- Immediate Aftermath: 10 Minutes After the Shot — the first minutes, second by second.
- Microphone — The Exploding Mic Theory — what investigators conclude caused the death.
- Fed Slop Issue 64: A security-team member as the shooter — the same claim in its other form.
- Fed Slop Issue 38: The black SUV rush from the stage — questions about the evacuation.