Campus Alert Archive
Penn College

Off-campus assault 900 block West Fourth Street

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
PAassaulttimely 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 verbatim723 chars
Student Reports Off-Campus Assault November 2, 2009 A 20-year-old female Penn College student has reported that she was grabbed and pulled to the ground between houses in the 900 block of West Fourth Street last Friday around 2 a.m. She has described the attacker as a dark-skinned male. The student was able to get away from the assailant and run to safety. She reported the incident to the Williamsport Bureau of Police, who are investigating. There is no other description of the assailant available at this time. Penn College Police remind everyone to be alert for suspicious persons and dangerous situations. At night, walk only on well-lit streets and pathways and with a friend. Be security conscious at all times.
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.

Student Reports Off-Campus Assault November 2, 2009 A 20-year-old female Penn College student has reported that she was grabbed and pulled to the ground between houses in the 900 block of West Fourth Street last Friday around 2 a.m. She has described the attacker as a dark-skinned male. The student was able to get away from the assailant and run to safety. She reported the incident to the Williamsport Bureau of Police, who are investigating. There is no other description of the assailant available at this time. Penn College Police remind everyone to be alert for suspicious persons and dangerous situations. At night, walk only on well-lit streets and pathways and with a friend. Be security conscious at all times.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

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

    Final assessment

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

    Final assessment

    900 block of West Fourth 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: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Element coded from wording alone.
    2. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Same conclusion on second look.
    3. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Matches the public-warning test.
    4. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Wording is decisive here.
    5. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
    6. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Source attribution is explicit.
    7. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
    8. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Reads as official campus channel.
    9. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    10. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Judged present from named agency.
    11. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Agency or office is named.
    12. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Public safety sender is clear.
    13. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Official notice framing supports source.
    14. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
    15. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    16. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    17. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Source present in opening framing.
    18. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
    19. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Final independent coding concurs.
    20. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Independent review agrees.
    21. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Confirmed on re-read.
    22. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Based solely on the alert text.
    23. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. From the full message only.
    24. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. No outside context used.
    25. present: 900 block of West Fourth Street is named. Strict rubric application.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Walk well-lit streets with a friend; be alert.

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

    Final assessment

    Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice.

    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: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Sender language is unambiguous.
    2. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Reads as official campus channel.
    3. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    4. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Judged present from named agency.
    5. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Agency or office is named.
    6. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Public safety sender is clear.
    7. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Official notice framing supports source.
    8. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Source element satisfies the bar.
    9. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    10. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    11. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Source present in opening framing.
    12. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Institutional voice is obvious.
    13. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Final independent coding concurs.
    14. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Independent review agrees.
    15. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Confirmed on re-read.
    16. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Based solely on the alert text.
    17. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. From the full message only.
    18. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. No outside context used.
    19. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Strict rubric application.
    20. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Element coded from wording alone.
    21. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Same conclusion on second look.
    22. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Matches the public-warning test.
    23. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Wording is decisive here.
    24. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Clear institutional sender cue.
    25. present: Last Friday around 2 a.m.; November 2 2009 notice. Source attribution is explicit.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description.

    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; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Judged present from named agency.
    2. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Agency or office is named.
    3. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Public safety sender is clear.
    4. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Official notice framing supports source.
    5. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Source element satisfies the bar.
    6. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    7. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    8. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Source present in opening framing.
    9. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Institutional voice is obvious.
    10. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Final independent coding concurs.
    11. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Independent review agrees.
    12. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Confirmed on re-read.
    13. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Based solely on the alert text.
    14. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. From the full message only.
    15. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. No outside context used.
    16. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Strict rubric application.
    17. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Element coded from wording alone.
    18. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Same conclusion on second look.
    19. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Matches the public-warning test.
    20. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Wording is decisive here.
    21. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Clear institutional sender cue.
    22. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Source attribution is explicit.
    23. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Sender language is unambiguous.
    24. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. Reads as official campus channel.
    25. present: Student escaped; WBP investigating; limited suspect description. 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: Off-campus assault 900 block West Fourth Street." Incident of November 2, 2009. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/penn-college-west-fourth-assault-2009-11-02/

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