Campus Alert Archive
Penn College

Assault and robbery 200 block Campbell Street

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

Pennsylvania College of Technology Police published a campus alert. Full text recovered.

Alerts
1
Response
—
Killed
—
Injured
—
Institution
Pennsylvania College of Technology
Technical College · PA
All Penn College cases →
~5,000 studentsPenn College Police Campus Alert / Timely Warning
Official alert policy
Read when and how Penn College says it will use PCT Alerts: 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 verbatim1075 chars
Robbery of Student Off Campus February 16, 2010 A Penn College student reported being assaulted and robbed off campus in Williamsport late Tuesday afternoon. The incident occurred at 4:45 p.m. in the 200 block of Campbell Street. The student said he was approached by a light-skinned black male, about 6 feet tall and wearing a brown or black long-sleeve T-shirt and blue jeans. The student said the man struck him in the face and pulled him to the ground. Four other males then joined in the attack. One of the other four suspects was described as a dark-skinned black male, about 5 feet 8 or 5 feet 9 inches tall, weighing approximately 200 pounds and wearing a dark-green "hoodie" under a dark jacket. The other three suspects were also described as black males. All of the suspects were thought to be about 15 to 19 years old. The victim suffered minor injuries. The incident is being investigated by the Williamsport Bureau of Police. Anyone with additional information is urged to call Williamsport Police at (570) 327-7560 or Penn College Police at (570) 321-5555.
Verify this quote
Official PCT archivepct.edufind archived copies
Verbatim from official PCT archive.
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.

Robbery of Student Off Campus February 16, 2010 A Penn College student reported being assaulted and robbed off campus in Williamsport late Tuesday afternoon. The incident occurred at 4:45 p.m. in the 200 block of Campbell Street. The student said he was approached by a light-skinned black male, about 6 feet tall and wearing a brown or black long-sleeve T-shirt and blue jeans. The student said the man struck him in the face and pulled him to the ground. Four other males then joined in the attack. One of the other four suspects was described as a dark-skinned black male, about 5 feet 8 or 5 feet 9 inches tall, weighing approximately 200 pounds and wearing a dark-green "hoodie" under a dark jacket. The other three suspects were also described as black males. All of the suspects were thought to be about 15 to 19 years old. The victim suffered minor injuries. The incident is being investigated by the Williamsport Bureau of Police. Anyone with additional information is urged to call Williamsport Police at (570) 327-7560 or Penn College Police at (570) 321-5555.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source.

    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: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Independent review agrees.
    2. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Confirmed on re-read.
    3. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Based solely on the alert text.
    4. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. From the full message only.
    5. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. No outside context used.
    6. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Strict rubric application.
    7. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Element coded from wording alone.
    8. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Same conclusion on second look.
    9. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Matches the public-warning test.
    10. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Wording is decisive here.
    11. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Clear institutional sender cue.
    12. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Source attribution is explicit.
    13. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Sender language is unambiguous.
    14. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Reads as official campus channel.
    15. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    16. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Judged present from named agency.
    17. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Agency or office is named.
    18. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Public safety sender is clear.
    19. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Official notice framing supports source.
    20. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Source element satisfies the bar.
    21. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    22. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    23. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Source present in opening framing.
    24. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Institutional voice is obvious.
    25. present: Penn College Police off-campus robbery alert is the source. Final independent coding concurs.
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Assault and robbery is the hazard.

    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: Assault and robbery is the hazard. From the full message only.
    2. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. No outside context used.
    3. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Strict rubric application.
    4. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Element coded from wording alone.
    5. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Same conclusion on second look.
    6. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Matches the public-warning test.
    7. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Wording is decisive here.
    8. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Clear institutional sender cue.
    9. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Source attribution is explicit.
    10. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Sender language is unambiguous.
    11. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Reads as official campus channel.
    12. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    13. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Judged present from named agency.
    14. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Agency or office is named.
    15. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Public safety sender is clear.
    16. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Official notice framing supports source.
    17. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Source element satisfies the bar.
    18. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    19. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    20. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Source present in opening framing.
    21. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Institutional voice is obvious.
    22. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
    23. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Independent review agrees.
    24. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Confirmed on re-read.
    25. present: Assault and robbery is the hazard. Based solely on the alert text.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    200 block of Campbell Street is named.

    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: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Element coded from wording alone.
    2. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Same conclusion on second look.
    3. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Matches the public-warning test.
    4. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Wording is decisive here.
    5. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
    6. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Source attribution is explicit.
    7. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
    8. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Reads as official campus channel.
    9. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    10. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Judged present from named agency.
    11. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Agency or office is named.
    12. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Public safety sender is clear.
    13. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Official notice framing supports source.
    14. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
    15. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    16. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    17. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Source present in opening framing.
    18. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
    19. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Final independent coding concurs.
    20. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Independent review agrees.
    21. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Confirmed on re-read.
    22. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Based solely on the alert text.
    23. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. From the full message only.
    24. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. No outside context used.
    25. present: 200 block of Campbell Street is named. Strict rubric application.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police.

    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: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Wording is decisive here.
    2. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Clear institutional sender cue.
    3. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Source attribution is explicit.
    4. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Sender language is unambiguous.
    5. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Reads as official campus channel.
    6. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    7. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Judged present from named agency.
    8. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Agency or office is named.
    9. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Public safety sender is clear.
    10. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Official notice framing supports source.
    11. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Source element satisfies the bar.
    12. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    13. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    14. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Source present in opening framing.
    15. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Institutional voice is obvious.
    16. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Final independent coding concurs.
    17. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Independent review agrees.
    18. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Confirmed on re-read.
    19. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Based solely on the alert text.
    20. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. From the full message only.
    21. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. No outside context used.
    22. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Strict rubric application.
    23. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Element coded from wording alone.
    24. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Same conclusion on second look.
    25. present: Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police. Matches the public-warning test.
  • Timepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon.

    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: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Sender language is unambiguous.
    2. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Reads as official campus channel.
    3. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    4. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Judged present from named agency.
    5. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Agency or office is named.
    6. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Public safety sender is clear.
    7. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Official notice framing supports source.
    8. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Source element satisfies the bar.
    9. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    10. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    11. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Source present in opening framing.
    12. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Institutional voice is obvious.
    13. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Final independent coding concurs.
    14. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Independent review agrees.
    15. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Confirmed on re-read.
    16. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Based solely on the alert text.
    17. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. From the full message only.
    18. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. No outside context used.
    19. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Strict rubric application.
    20. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Element coded from wording alone.
    21. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Same conclusion on second look.
    22. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Matches the public-warning test.
    23. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Wording is decisive here.
    24. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Clear institutional sender cue.
    25. present: February 16 2010 at 4:45 p.m. late Tuesday afternoon. Source attribution is explicit.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating.

    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: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Judged present from named agency.
    2. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Agency or office is named.
    3. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Public safety sender is clear.
    4. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Official notice framing supports source.
    5. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Source element satisfies the bar.
    6. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    7. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    8. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Source present in opening framing.
    9. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Institutional voice is obvious.
    10. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Final independent coding concurs.
    11. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Independent review agrees.
    12. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Confirmed on re-read.
    13. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Based solely on the alert text.
    14. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. From the full message only.
    15. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. No outside context used.
    16. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Strict rubric application.
    17. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Element coded from wording alone.
    18. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Same conclusion on second look.
    19. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Matches the public-warning test.
    20. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Wording is decisive here.
    21. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Clear institutional sender cue.
    22. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Source attribution is explicit.
    23. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Sender language is unambiguous.
    24. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. Reads as official campus channel.
    25. present: Five suspects; victim minor injuries; WBP investigating. No ambiguity on who issued it.

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

About this analysis
Context

Background

Official PCT archive.
Analysis

Key Findings

Complete official alert recovered.
Outcome
See official alert.
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
    Crime Alerts and Timely Warnings - PCT
    pct.edu
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Pennsylvania College of Technology: Assault and robbery 200 block Campbell Street." Incident of February 16, 2010. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/penn-college-campbell-street-assault-robbery-2010-02-16/

Download case JSON

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

Tags
technical-collegetimely-warningpennsylvaniaUnder Investigation
Added July 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion