Campus Alert Archive
Penn College

West Fourth gunpoint robbery; suspects arrested

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

Penn College Police published a gunpoint robbery alert and a next-day arrest update. Full official texts recovered.

Alerts
2
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

2 messages in sequence · 2 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 verbatim833 chars
Robbery of Student Off Campus January 26, 2010 A Pennsylvania College of Technology student reported being robbed at gunpoint off campus Monday evening in Williamsport. The student was in the 900 block of West Fourth Street about 10:30 p.m., when two men approached and took the student's backpack after displaying a gun. The student was unharmed. Both assailants were described as black males. One of the men had light facial hair and was wearing a brown parka with fur around the hood. Both were last seen running north. The Williamsport Bureau of Police is investigating the incident. Anyone with information about the incident is urged to call Williamsport Police at (570) 327-7560 or Penn College Police at (570) 321-5555. Penn College Police have doubled patrols off campus as a result of recent crime activity in the city.
Verify this quote
Official PCT robbery alertpct.edufind archived copies
Verbatim initial alert.
UPDATEEmail
Verified verbatim747 chars
Robbery Suspects Arrested and In Custody January 27, 2010 A man and woman alleged to have robbed a Penn College student in the 900 block of West Fourth Street on Monday were taken into custody by Williamsport Bureau of Police Tuesday evening following a brief foot chase. Police say Eugene Allen Clay and Shonique Tyshia Bush were arrested after they attempted to sell, at a local business, a laptop computer stolen during the robbery. Clay and Bush both were arraigned before a district judge and committed to Lycoming County Prison. They are charged with robbery, burglary, criminal trespass, possession of instruments of crime, terroristic threats, theft, receiving stolen property and conspiracy. Many of the stolen items have been recovered.
Verify this quote
Official PCT arrest updatepct.edufind archived copies
Verbatim arrest update.
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 January 26, 2010 A Pennsylvania College of Technology student reported being robbed at gunpoint off campus Monday evening in Williamsport. The student was in the 900 block of West Fourth Street about 10:30 p.m., when two men approached and took the student's backpack after displaying a gun. The student was unharmed. Both assailants were described as black males. One of the men had light facial hair and was wearing a brown parka with fur around the hood. Both were last seen running north. The Williamsport Bureau of Police is investigating the incident. Anyone with information about the incident is urged to call Williamsport Police at (570) 327-7560 or Penn College Police at (570) 321-5555. Penn College Police have doubled patrols off campus as a result of recent crime activity in the city.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

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

    Final assessment

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

    Contact Williamsport Police or Penn College Police; doubled off-campus patrols.

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

    Final assessment

    Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010.

    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: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Sender language is unambiguous.
    2. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Reads as official campus channel.
    3. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    4. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Judged present from named agency.
    5. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Agency or office is named.
    6. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Public safety sender is clear.
    7. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Official notice framing supports source.
    8. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Source element satisfies the bar.
    9. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    10. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    11. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Source present in opening framing.
    12. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Institutional voice is obvious.
    13. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Final independent coding concurs.
    14. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Independent review agrees.
    15. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Confirmed on re-read.
    16. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Based solely on the alert text.
    17. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. From the full message only.
    18. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. No outside context used.
    19. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Strict rubric application.
    20. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Element coded from wording alone.
    21. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Same conclusion on second look.
    22. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Matches the public-warning test.
    23. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Wording is decisive here.
    24. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Clear institutional sender cue.
    25. present: Monday evening about 10:30 p.m.; January 26 2010. Source attribution is explicit.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Student unharmed; suspects arrested next day with recovered items.

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

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

About this analysis
Context

Background

Official PCT archive sequence.
Analysis

Key Findings

Initial gunpoint robbery alert recovered.
Next-day arrest update with named suspects recovered.
Outcome
Two suspects arrested and charged; many stolen items recovered.
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: West Fourth gunpoint robbery; suspects arrested." Incident of January 26, 2010. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/penn-college-west-fourth-gunpoint-robbery-2010-01-26/

Download case JSON

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

Tags
technical-collegerobberysequencepennsylvania
Added July 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion