Campus Alert Archive
Penn College

Off-campus apartment robbery West Fourth 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 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 verbatim918 chars
Off-Campus Attempted Robbery On Wednesday, February 12 at 1:30 p.m., a 22 year-old Penn College student reported that he was robbed inside his off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street on Monday, February 10 between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. He said that he answered his door and two males forced their way into the apartment building. He said one of the suspects struck him in the head with what he believes to have been a handgun. While in the apartment the suspects asked "where are your drugs" and then took several ounces of marijuana, cash and his cell phone. His roommate was also in the apartment at the time and they took his cell phone as well. The suspects were described as black males in their early 20's, 6'2" to 6'5" in height with short hair. Anyone who may have witnessed the incident or have additional information are encouraged to contact the 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 Wednesday, February 12 at 1:30 p.m., a 22 year-old Penn College student reported that he was robbed inside his off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street on Monday, February 10 between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. He said that he answered his door and two males forced their way into the apartment building. He said one of the suspects struck him in the head with what he believes to have been a handgun. While in the apartment the suspects asked "where are your drugs" and then took several ounces of marijuana, cash and his cell phone. His roommate was also in the apartment at the time and they took his cell phone as well. The suspects were described as black males in their early 20's, 6'2" to 6'5" in height with short hair. Anyone who may have witnessed the incident or have additional information are encouraged to contact the 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

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

    Final assessment

    Off-campus apartment in the 1000 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: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Element coded from wording alone.
    2. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Same conclusion on second look.
    3. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Matches the public-warning test.
    4. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Wording is decisive here.
    5. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
    6. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Source attribution is explicit.
    7. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
    8. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Reads as official campus channel.
    9. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    10. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Judged present from named agency.
    11. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Agency or office is named.
    12. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Public safety sender is clear.
    13. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Official notice framing supports source.
    14. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
    15. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    16. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    17. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Source present in opening framing.
    18. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
    19. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Final independent coding concurs.
    20. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Independent review agrees.
    21. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Confirmed on re-read.
    22. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Based solely on the alert text.
    23. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. From the full message only.
    24. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. No outside context used.
    25. present: Off-campus apartment in the 1000 block of West Fourth Street is named. Strict rubric application.
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Contact Penn College Police at 570-321-5555 with information.

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

    Final assessment

    Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 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: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Sender language is unambiguous.
    2. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Reads as official campus channel.
    3. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. No ambiguity on who issued it.
    4. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Judged present from named agency.
    5. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Agency or office is named.
    6. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Public safety sender is clear.
    7. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Official notice framing supports source.
    8. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Source element satisfies the bar.
    9. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    10. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    11. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Source present in opening framing.
    12. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Institutional voice is obvious.
    13. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Final independent coding concurs.
    14. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Independent review agrees.
    15. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Confirmed on re-read.
    16. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Based solely on the alert text.
    17. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. From the full message only.
    18. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. No outside context used.
    19. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Strict rubric application.
    20. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Element coded from wording alone.
    21. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Same conclusion on second look.
    22. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Matches the public-warning test.
    23. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Wording is decisive here.
    24. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Clear institutional sender cue.
    25. present: Monday February 10 between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. is stated. Source attribution is explicit.
  • Impactpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described.

    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: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Judged present from named agency.
    2. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Agency or office is named.
    3. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Public safety sender is clear.
    4. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Official notice framing supports source.
    5. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Source element satisfies the bar.
    6. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Re-checked against full paragraph.
    7. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Pass agrees with majority logic.
    8. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Source present in opening framing.
    9. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Institutional voice is obvious.
    10. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Final independent coding concurs.
    11. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Independent review agrees.
    12. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Confirmed on re-read.
    13. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Based solely on the alert text.
    14. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. From the full message only.
    15. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. No outside context used.
    16. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Strict rubric application.
    17. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Element coded from wording alone.
    18. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Same conclusion on second look.
    19. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Matches the public-warning test.
    20. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Wording is decisive here.
    21. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Clear institutional sender cue.
    22. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Source attribution is explicit.
    23. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Sender language is unambiguous.
    24. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. Reads as official campus channel.
    25. present: Cash, phones, and marijuana taken; two suspects described. 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: Off-campus apartment robbery West Fourth Street." Incident of February 10, 2020. Added July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/penn-college-west-fourth-off-campus-robbery-2020-02-10/

Download case JSON

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

Tags
technical-collegerobberypennsylvaniaUnder Investigation
Added July 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion