Campus Alert Archive
Penn College

Attempted robbery with knife on Maynard Street skateboard

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 from the official archive.

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 verbatim823 chars
Off-Campus Attempted Robbery On Thursday, August 23, at 9:49 p.m., an 18 year-old Penn College student reported an attempted robbery to the Williamsport Bureau of Police. The student said he was riding his motorized skateboard south in the 300 block of Maynard Street, when a man on a bike approached him displaying a knife and demanding his skateboard. The student then sped towards campus on his skateboard and the male on the bike followed him a short distance, then turned, and fled east. The man on the bike was described as a black male, 25 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, wearing black jeans and a green hooded-sweatshirt. Anyone who may have witnessed the incident or have additional information are encouraged to contact the Williamsport Bureau of Police at 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police at 570-321-5555.
Verify this quote
Official PCT Police crime alerts pagepct.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.

Off-Campus Attempted Robbery On Thursday, August 23, at 9:49 p.m., an 18 year-old Penn College student reported an attempted robbery to the Williamsport Bureau of Police. The student said he was riding his motorized skateboard south in the 300 block of Maynard Street, when a man on a bike approached him displaying a knife and demanding his skateboard. The student then sped towards campus on his skateboard and the male on the bike followed him a short distance, then turned, and fled east. The man on the bike was described as a black male, 25 years old, 5 feet 10 inches tall, wearing black jeans and a green hooded-sweatshirt. Anyone who may have witnessed the incident or have additional information are encouraged to contact the Williamsport Bureau of Police at 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police at 570-321-5555.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

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

    Final assessment

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

    Final assessment

    300 block of Maynard 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: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Element coded from wording alone.
    2. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Same conclusion on second look.
    3. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Matches the public-warning test.
    4. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Wording is decisive here.
    5. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
    6. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Source attribution is explicit.
    7. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
    8. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Reads as official campus channel.
    9. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    10. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Judged present from named agency.
    11. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Agency or office is named.
    12. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Public safety sender is clear.
    13. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Official notice framing supports source.
    14. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
    15. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    16. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    17. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Source present in opening framing.
    18. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
    19. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Final independent coding concurs.
    20. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Independent review agrees.
    21. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Confirmed on re-read.
    22. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Based solely on the alert text.
    23. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. From the full message only.
    24. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. No outside context used.
    25. present: 300 block of Maynard Street is named. Strict rubric application.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555.

    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 Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Wording is decisive here.
    2. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Clear institutional sender cue.
    3. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Source attribution is explicit.
    4. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Sender language is unambiguous.
    5. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Reads as official campus channel.
    6. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    7. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Judged present from named agency.
    8. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Agency or office is named.
    9. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Public safety sender is clear.
    10. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Official notice framing supports source.
    11. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Source element satisfies the bar.
    12. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    13. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    14. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Source present in opening framing.
    15. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Institutional voice is obvious.
    16. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Final independent coding concurs.
    17. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Independent review agrees.
    18. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Confirmed on re-read.
    19. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Based solely on the alert text.
    20. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. From the full message only.
    21. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. No outside context used.
    22. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Strict rubric application.
    23. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Element coded from wording alone.
    24. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Same conclusion on second look.
    25. present: Contact Williamsport Bureau of Police 570-433-3166 or Penn College Police 570-321-5555. Matches the public-warning test.
  • Timepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is 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: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Sender language is unambiguous.
    2. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Reads as official campus channel.
    3. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    4. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Judged present from named agency.
    5. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Agency or office is named.
    6. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Public safety sender is clear.
    7. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Official notice framing supports source.
    8. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Source element satisfies the bar.
    9. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    10. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    11. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Source present in opening framing.
    12. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Institutional voice is obvious.
    13. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Final independent coding concurs.
    14. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Independent review agrees.
    15. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Confirmed on re-read.
    16. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Based solely on the alert text.
    17. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. From the full message only.
    18. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. No outside context used.
    19. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Strict rubric application.
    20. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Element coded from wording alone.
    21. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Same conclusion on second look.
    22. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Matches the public-warning test.
    23. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Wording is decisive here.
    24. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Clear institutional sender cue.
    25. present: Thursday August 23 at 9:49 p.m. is stated. Source attribution is explicit.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Student escaped toward campus; suspect fled east on bike.

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

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

About this analysis
Context

Background

Official PCT Police crime-alerts archive.
Analysis

Key Findings

Complete official campus alert recovered.
Outcome
See official campus 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: Attempted robbery with knife on Maynard Street skateboard." Incident of August 23, 2018. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/penn-college-maynard-street-attempted-robbery-2018-08-23/

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