The high-profile interview with Brian Harple, the head of Charlie Kirk’s security detail, intended to provide clarity, but instead confirmed the catastrophic security failures and the profound lack of accountability within the protection team and the university.

Harple’s testimony is a complex mix of unwavering “brotherhood loyalty” and demonstrable incompetence, revealing that a known threat point was left vulnerable and that key security protocols were ignored due to assumptions and a failure to seek basic clarity.

The Known Threat: Sniper Spot Was Analyzed and Exposed

Harple made a stunning admission about the security failure at Utah Valley University (UVU):

Pre-Shot Analysis: He confirmed that it was routine protocol for his team to go to the expected shooting positions, analyze the sightlines, and send “pre-shot” photos back to Charlie. This means the security detail knew the exact rooftop position that was eventually used was a clean shot and a viable threat.

Requested Protection Ignored: Harple provided text messages proving he explicitly requested controlled access to the dangerous rooftop, warning UVU’s Chief of Police that students had access. The Chief responded with the ambiguous statement: “I got you covered.”

Harple assumed this meant the Chief would secure the area. His failure to ask for 100% clarification—e.g., “Are you locking the doors, or are you letting my men up?”—is viewed as a catastrophic lapse in professional judgment, shifting the blame entirely when his job was to ensure absolute client safety.

The Behavioral Cluster: Incompetence Triggers Stress

A behavioral analysis of the interview reveals that Harple’s emotional response is highly compartmentalized:

Loyalty (Low Stress): When questioned about ties to Mossad or extremist groups, Harple is relatively calm, relying on his “brotherhood mentality” (close friendship, Christian identity, being “Americans”) to deny the claims. He speaks in a low tone and rarely deviates from his baseline.

Competence (High Stress): The moment the topic shifts to performance, planning, and threat assessment, his stress spikes dramatically. This stress cluster includes: rising vocal tone, increased use of adaptors (hand rubbing/massaging), a lip lick, and exaggerated illustrators—all behaviors consistent with acute discomfort and the need to oversell a weak story.

This behavioral split suggests Harple is genuinely convinced of his team’s loyalty but is 100% aware of their incompetence and the devastating fact that their performance was entirely at fault.

The Drone and Accountability Failures

Harple’s explanation for why his team didn’t use a drone to monitor the rooftop was riddled with contradictions and ignorance of basic policy:

The Drone Lie: He claimed they couldn’t fly their large drone due to Provo airspace, but that smaller “bitty” drones were allowed. However, UVU policy clearly requires a request form for all drones, regardless of size, which Harple never filed. He was either ignorant of the necessary policy or deliberately created an excuse.

The Lack of Accountability: Harple’s entire defense is focused on shifting the blame onto the UVU Chief of Police or challenging the public to “march up to the school and do a FOIA.” He consistently refuses to take accountability, stating that the fault is not theirs, despite the fact that his client perished on his watch.

The Jarring Lack of Empathy and Professional Pride

Harple’s personal anecdotes about the tragic event were delivered with a startlingly inappropriate casualness, suggesting a profound desensitization to the tragedy of his client:

“We Laugh About It Now”: He described the horrifying scene of struggling to fit Charlie’s body into the van, with the door open and his own “butt hanging out,” and then added, “We kind of laugh about it now.” This phrase, usually reserved for close calls, is viewed as shockingly poor judgment when discussing his client’s passing.

Misplaced Pride: He boasted that his driver “drove like a champion,” ignoring the reality that “it didn’t pay off”—the client was lost.

This public display of misplaced pride and casual handling of the tragedy further solidifies the public’s perception that for Harple, the incident was a professional failure to be defended, not a human tragedy requiring humility and accountability.