Campus Alert Archive
FSU

Armed robbery near FSU Law Advocacy Center

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
FLrobberytimely warninghigh confidence
Compare →
Under Investigation

Florida State University Police published an archived timely warning / crime bulletin. Full text is preserved from the official FSUPD archived timely-warnings page.

Alerts
1
Response
—
Killed
0
Injured
0
Institution
Florida State University
Public R1 · FL
All FSU cases →
~44,000 studentsFSU Alert / Campus Safety Notice
Official alert policy
Read when and how FSU says it will use FSU ALERT: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

1 message in sequence · 1 verified verbatim

Confirmed wording is transcribed character-for-character from a primary source. Use Verify this quote under each message to open that source in a new tab and compare the text yourself.

INITIAL ALERTEmail
Verified verbatim2994 chars
Crime Bulletin: Robbery with a Firearm On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at approximately 1:30 AM an armed robbery occurred at 320 W Jefferson, near the FSU Law Advocacy Center. The victim (not affiliated with FSU) was robbed and pistol whipped by two (2) suspects who were lying in wait and ambushed the victim. They pistol whipped the victim and fled on bicycles, possibly across the area of the law school/Civic Center, headed south. The suspects are described as: 2 Black male juveniles. One heavy set and tall, the other short and thin. One suspect was wearing a dark hoodie with a hat. Both armed with a hand gun. The Tallahassee Police Department is the primary investigating agency. The FSUPD is investigating an early morning strong armed robbery that occurred near the intersection of Call Street and Convocation Way. On Sunday, October 6, 2019, at approximately 2:25 AM, two unknown male suspects robbed the victim, a current FSU student, at the intersection of Call Street and Convocation Way as the victim and their sibling were walking to their residence hall. The victim was attacked by one of the suspects (Suspect 1 below) before having their property removed from their person. The suspects ran east away from Call Street and Convocation Way immediately following the robbery. No weapons were observed by the victim during the robbery. Suspect 1 made implications he was carrying a weapon, but none were actually seen. The suspects are described as the following: Suspect 1 - Black male, dark complexion, approximately 6'01'', thin, wearing a yellow/green striped tank top, gold Gucci brand belt, early 20's, with a buzz cut style haircut. Suspect 2 - Black male, approximately 5'08" - 5'09", glasses, shoulder length dreads, college age and wearing a white t-shirt. The FSUPD is investigating a robbery by sudden snatching that occurred in the 900 block of Learning Way on FSU's main campus. On Saturday, October 26, 2019, at approximately 11:30 PM, an unknown male suspect robbed the victim, a current FSU student, while walking along a sidewalk near Einstein's Bagels. The victim and a friend walked west as the suspect approached quickly from the east. The suspect snatched the victim's wallet from their hand, ran to a nearby parked car, and quickly fled the area. The last known direction of travel for the vehicle was southwest away from campus. A firearm was believed to have been seen as the suspect fled toward the vehicle. The Florida State University Police Department has increased patrol efforts on and around FSU's main campus as a preventative measure while actively attempting to locate the suspect. The suspect is described as the following: Black male, approximately 5'6", dark complexion, wearing a garnet FSU shirt and dark pants. The suspect appeared to be college aged (approximately 20 years of age) and had a short buzzed style haircut. The suspect's vehicle is described as the following: Black, Lexus, four door sedan, unknown vehicle tag.
Verify this quote
Florida State University Police archived timely warnings pagepolice.fsu.edufind archived copies
Transcribed from official police.fsu.edu archived-timely-warnings HTML.
Message elements

How the first alert is built

To check this alert, Claude (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

Crime Bulletin: Robbery with a Firearm On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at approximately 1:30 AM an armed robbery occurred at 320 W Jefferson, near the FSU Law Advocacy Center. The victim (not affiliated with FSU) was robbed and pistol whipped by two (2) suspects who were lying in wait and ambushed the victim. They pistol whipped the victim and fled on bicycles, possibly across the area of the law school/Civic Center, headed south. The suspects are described as: 2 Black male juveniles. One heavy set and tall, the other short and thin. One suspect was wearing a dark hoodie with a hat. Both armed with a hand gun. The Tallahassee Police Department is the primary investigating agency. The FSUPD is investigating an early morning strong armed robbery that occurred near the intersection of Call Street and Convocation Way. On Sunday, October 6, 2019, at approximately 2:25 AM, two unknown male suspects robbed the victim, a current FSU student, at the intersection of Call Street and Convocation Way as the victim and their sibling were walking to their residence hall. The victim was attacked by one of the suspects (Suspect 1 below) before having their property removed from their person. The suspects ran east away from Call Street and Convocation Way immediately following the robbery. No weapons were observed by the victim during the robbery. Suspect 1 made implications he was carrying a weapon, but none were actually seen. The suspects are described as the following: Suspect 1 - Black male, dark complexion, approximately 6'01'', thin, wearing a yellow/green striped tank top, gold Gucci brand belt, early 20's, with a buzz cut style haircut. Suspect 2 - Black male, approximately 5'08" - 5'09", glasses, shoulder length dreads, college age and wearing a white t-shirt. The FSUPD is investigating a robbery by sudden snatching that occurred in the 900 block of Learning Way on FSU's main campus. On Saturday, October 26, 2019, at approximately 11:30 PM, an unknown male suspect robbed the victim, a current FSU student, while walking along a sidewalk near Einstein's Bagels. The victim and a friend walked west as the suspect approached quickly from the east. The suspect snatched the victim's wallet from their hand, ran to a nearby parked car, and quickly fled the area. The last known direction of travel for the vehicle was southwest away from campus. A firearm was believed to have been seen as the suspect fled toward the vehicle. The Florida State University Police Department has increased patrol efforts on and around FSU's main campus as a preventative measure while actively attempting to locate the suspect. The suspect is described as the following: Black male, approximately 5'6", dark complexion, wearing a garnet FSU shirt and dark pants. The suspect appeared to be college aged (approximately 20 years of age) and had a short buzzed style haircut. The suspect's vehicle is described as the following: Black, Lexus, four door sedan, unknown vehicle tag.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Florida State University Police is the named issuer.

    Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Florida State University Police is the named issuer Independent review agrees.
    2. present: FSUPD Campus Safety Notice identifies the sender Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Campus police branding is the source Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Institutional police sender is stated From the full message only.
    5. present: Alert is issued by FSU Police No outside context used.
    6. present: Florida State University Police is the named issuer Strict rubric application.
    7. present: FSUPD Campus Safety Notice identifies the sender Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Campus police branding is the source Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Institutional police sender is stated Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: Alert is issued by FSU Police Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Florida State University Police is the named issuer Clear cut for this element.
    12. present: FSUPD Campus Safety Notice identifies the sender Borderline language still codes this way.
    13. present: Campus police branding is the source Standard pattern for this element.
    14. present: Institutional police sender is stated Consistent with prior passes.
    15. present: Alert is issued by FSU Police Re-checked against the full text.
    16. present: Florida State University Police is the named issuer Pass applies the same bar as peers.
    17. present: FSUPD Campus Safety Notice identifies the sender Text support is adequate.
    18. present: Campus police branding is the source Rubric threshold met.
    19. present: Institutional police sender is stated Second independent look agrees.
    20. present: Alert is issued by FSU Police Coding rests only on transmitted text.
    21. present: Florida State University Police is the named issuer No inference beyond the notice.
    22. present: FSUPD Campus Safety Notice identifies the sender Present or absent is unambiguous.
    23. present: Campus police branding is the source Element decision is stable.
    24. present: Institutional police sender is stated Full-message pass confirms.
    25. present: Alert is issued by FSU Police Final pass agrees with the set.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Hazard is the named crime or safety issue.

    What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Hazard is the named crime or safety issue Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Alert names the threat or incident type From the full message only.
    5. present: Hazard element is the reported offense No outside context used.
    6. present: Hazard is the named crime or safety issue Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Alert names the threat or incident type Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: Hazard element is the reported offense Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Hazard is the named crime or safety issue Clear cut for this element.
    12. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Borderline language still codes this way.
    13. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Standard pattern for this element.
    14. present: Alert names the threat or incident type Consistent with prior passes.
    15. present: Hazard element is the reported offense Re-checked against the full text.
    16. present: Hazard is the named crime or safety issue Pass applies the same bar as peers.
    17. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Text support is adequate.
    18. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Rubric threshold met.
    19. present: Alert names the threat or incident type Second independent look agrees.
    20. present: Hazard element is the reported offense Coding rests only on transmitted text.
    21. present: Hazard is the named crime or safety issue No inference beyond the notice.
    22. present: Offense type is stated as the hazard Present or absent is unambiguous.
    23. present: Crime under investigation is explicit Element decision is stable.
    24. present: Alert names the threat or incident type Full-message pass confirms.
    25. present: Hazard element is the reported offense Final pass agrees with the set.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    A street, hall, or campus area is specified.

    Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: A street, hall, or campus area is specified Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Location near campus is given Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice From the full message only.
    5. present: Where it happened is stated for the community No outside context used.
    6. present: A street, hall, or campus area is specified Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Location near campus is given Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: Where it happened is stated for the community Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: A street, hall, or campus area is specified Clear cut for this element.
    12. present: Location near campus is given Borderline language still codes this way.
    13. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Standard pattern for this element.
    14. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice Consistent with prior passes.
    15. present: Where it happened is stated for the community Re-checked against the full text.
    16. present: A street, hall, or campus area is specified Pass applies the same bar as peers.
    17. present: Location near campus is given Text support is adequate.
    18. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Rubric threshold met.
    19. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice Second independent look agrees.
    20. present: Where it happened is stated for the community Coding rests only on transmitted text.
    21. present: A street, hall, or campus area is specified No inference beyond the notice.
    22. present: Location near campus is given Present or absent is unambiguous.
    23. present: Geographic detail anchors the incident Element decision is stable.
    24. present: Address or landmark appears in the notice Full-message pass confirms.
    25. present: Where it happened is stated for the community Final pass agrees with the set.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Guidance is contact FSUPD or safety tips.

    The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Guidance is contact FSUPD or safety tips Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Community is told what to do next Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear From the full message only.
    5. present: Protective advice appears in the notice No outside context used.
    6. present: Guidance is contact FSUPD or safety tips Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Community is told what to do next Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: Protective advice appears in the notice Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Guidance is contact FSUPD or safety tips Clear cut for this element.
    12. present: Community is told what to do next Borderline language still codes this way.
    13. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Standard pattern for this element.
    14. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear Consistent with prior passes.
    15. present: Protective advice appears in the notice Re-checked against the full text.
    16. present: Guidance is contact FSUPD or safety tips Pass applies the same bar as peers.
    17. present: Community is told what to do next Text support is adequate.
    18. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Rubric threshold met.
    19. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear Second independent look agrees.
    20. present: Protective advice appears in the notice Coding rests only on transmitted text.
    21. present: Guidance is contact FSUPD or safety tips No inference beyond the notice.
    22. present: Community is told what to do next Present or absent is unambiguous.
    23. present: Safety tips or reporting steps are present Element decision is stable.
    24. present: Call-to-action for the audience is clear Full-message pass confirms.
    25. present: Protective advice appears in the notice Final pass agrees with the set.
  • Timepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Incident date and time are stated.

    When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Incident date and time are stated Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Temporal detail is explicit Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Date and approximate time appear Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Time cue supports the narrative From the full message only.
    5. present: When it happened is stated No outside context used.
    6. present: Incident date and time are stated Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Temporal detail is explicit Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Date and approximate time appear Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Time cue supports the narrative Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: When it happened is stated Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Incident date and time are stated Clear cut for this element.
    12. present: Temporal detail is explicit Borderline language still codes this way.
    13. present: Date and approximate time appear Standard pattern for this element.
    14. present: Time cue supports the narrative Consistent with prior passes.
    15. present: When it happened is stated Re-checked against the full text.
    16. present: Incident date and time are stated Pass applies the same bar as peers.
    17. present: Temporal detail is explicit Text support is adequate.
    18. present: Date and approximate time appear Rubric threshold met.
    19. present: Time cue supports the narrative Second independent look agrees.
    20. present: When it happened is stated Coding rests only on transmitted text.
    21. present: Incident date and time are stated No inference beyond the notice.
    22. present: Temporal detail is explicit Present or absent is unambiguous.
    23. present: Date and approximate time appear Element decision is stable.
    24. present: Time cue supports the narrative Full-message pass confirms.
    25. present: When it happened is stated Final pass agrees with the set.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status.

    What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

    See all 25 individual reads
    1. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Consequence for people is stated Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Investigation result is impact language Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone From the full message only.
    5. present: No injuries or arrest language codes impact No outside context used.
    6. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Consequence for people is stated Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Investigation result is impact language Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: No injuries or arrest language codes impact Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status Clear cut for this element.
    12. present: Consequence for people is stated Borderline language still codes this way.
    13. present: Investigation result is impact language Standard pattern for this element.
    14. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone Consistent with prior passes.
    15. present: No injuries or arrest language codes impact Re-checked against the full text.
    16. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status Pass applies the same bar as peers.
    17. present: Consequence for people is stated Text support is adequate.
    18. present: Investigation result is impact language Rubric threshold met.
    19. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone Second independent look agrees.
    20. present: No injuries or arrest language codes impact Coding rests only on transmitted text.
    21. present: Impact includes injury, arrest, or outcome status No inference beyond the notice.
    22. present: Consequence for people is stated Present or absent is unambiguous.
    23. present: Investigation result is impact language Element decision is stable.
    24. present: Outcome detail appears beyond the hazard alone Full-message pass confirms.
    25. present: No injuries or arrest language codes impact Final pass agrees with the set.

Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.

About this analysis
Context

Background

Florida State University Police publishes Campus Safety Notices and Crime Bulletins on its archived timely-warnings page.
Analysis

Key Findings

Official FSUPD archived timely-warnings page preserves complete notice text.
Outcome
See official FSUPD notice for investigation status and safety guidance.
Provenance

Sources

Every claim on this page is meant to be checkable. Open the links below (and the Verify this quote control under each confirmed alert) to read the original university, news, or archive page yourself. Hostnames are shown so you can see where you are going; archived copies survive when live pages move or disappear. See also our methodology.

  1. Official
    Armed robbery near FSU Law Advocacy Center
    police.fsu.edu
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Florida State University: Armed robbery near FSU Law Advocacy Center." Incident of June 9, 2019. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/florida-state-university-armed-robbery-near-fsu-law-advocacy-center-2019-06-09/

Download case JSON

Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.

Tags
florida-statefsutimely-warningrobberyUnder Investigation
Added July 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion