Campus Alert Archive
BGSU

Hoax call claiming a library shooter; two sweeps found no threat

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
OHswattingemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Confirmed HoaxDetermined to be a hoax. The institutional response is documented because it reveals how the alert system performed under a perceived real threat.

At 9:53 AM EST on November 10, 2025, the City of Bowling Green Police Division received an anonymous call to a non-emergency line claiming an active shooter was inside Jerome Library at Bowling Green State University. BGSU Police responded, swept the building twice, and found no threat. The university's first AlertBG message did not reach students until 11:14 AM EST, 81 minutes after the call and after the all-clear had already been declared. The incident was determined to be a swatting hoax and BGSU's first.

Alerts
2
Response
—
Killed
—
Injured
—
Institution
Bowling Green State University
Public R2 · OH
All BGSU cases →
~20,000 studentsAlertBG
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

2 messages 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.

Some messages in this sequence are documented (their existence, timing, and channel are sourced) but their exact wording is not preserved in the public record. Those entries appear as placeholders; only confirmed text is displayed.

ALL CLEARSMS
Verified verbatim192 chars
All clear: BGSUPD responded to an anonymous call of threat at the library, received by City of Bowling Green. BGSUPD has determined no immediate threat. More information to be shared in email.
Verify this quote
BG Falcon Media (student newspaper) quoting full AlertBG SMS: 'The alert read, ...'bgfalconmedia.comfind archived copies
This 'all clear' was actually the first AlertBG notification students received, sent 81 minutes after the 9:53 AM EST call to the Bowling Green Police Division
The decision to skip an initial alert and only send an all-clear is highly unusual and drew significant criticism from BGSU students and Falcon Media editorials
The phrase 'received by City of Bowling Green' is unusual jurisdictional attribution; it clarifies that the call did not come through BGSU's own dispatch line
FOLLOW-UPEmail
Wording not preserved

This message is documented at this point in the sequence, but its exact wording is not preserved in the public record. The public edition displays only confirmed alert text.

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.

All clear: BGSUPD responded to an anonymous call of threat at the library, received by City of Bowling Green. BGSUPD has determined no immediate threat. More information to be shared in email.

  • Sourcepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous agreement that 'BGSUPD' (and the referencing City of Bowling Green) identifies the responding authority.

    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: 'BGSUPD responded' names authority.
    2. present: 'BGSUPD responded' names the responding authority.
    3. present: 'BGSUPD' named as responding authority.
    4. present: Attributed to BGSUPD.
    5. present: 'BGSUPD responded' identifies the police department.
    6. present: 'BGSUPD responded' names Bowling Green State University Police Department.
    7. present: 'BGSUPD' named as responding authority.
    8. present: 'BGSUPD' identifies agency.
    9. present: 'BGSUPD' identified as responding authority.
    10. present: Attributed to BGSUPD
    11. present: Names BGSUPD as the responding agency.
    12. present: BGSUPD identified as responding authority.
    13. present: Identifies BGSUPD (Bowling Green State University Police Department).
    14. present: Identifies 'BGSUPD' and 'City of Bowling Green'.
    15. present: BGSUPD named as responding department.
    16. present: Identified as "BGSUPD."
    17. present: 'BGSUPD' named as responding agency.
    18. present: 'BGSUPD responded' identifies authority.
    19. present: 'BGSUPD responded'.
    20. present: "BGSUPD responded" identifies Bowling Green State University Police
    21. present: Attributes the response to 'BGSUPD.'
    22. present: Names BGSUPD as responding department.
    23. present: 'BGSUPD responded' identifies the agency.
    24. present: Identifies 'BGSUPD' as responder.
    25. present: 'BGSUPD' named as responder.
  • Hazardabsent5/25

    Final assessment

    A strong majority (19 of 24) found 'threat at the library' too vague to name a specific hazard type, since it describes only an anonymous call rather than naming what the threat was.

    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. absent: 'threat at the library' is vague, no specific hazard type named.
    2. present: 'anonymous call of threat at the library' names the hazard.
    3. absent: Only 'anonymous call of threat' generically named, no specific hazard.
    4. absent: "Threat" is generic, no specific hazard type named.
    5. absent: 'anonymous call of threat' is vague, no specific hazard type named.
    6. absent: 'threat at the library' is vague, no specific hazard type named.
    7. present: 'anonymous call of threat at the library' names the hazard as a threat.
    8. present: 'anonymous call of threat at the library' names threat.
    9. absent: Only 'anonymous call of threat', no specific hazard named.
    10. absent: Only "anonymous call of threat" stated, hazard not specified
    11. absent: Threat at the library is generic, not a specific hazard type.
    12. absent: 'Threat at the library' generic, no specific hazard type named.
    13. present: Names 'anonymous call of threat at the library'.
    14. absent: Only 'anonymous call of threat', no specific hazard named.
    15. absent: Only 'threat at the library' referenced generically, no specific hazard type.
    16. absent: Only an "anonymous call of threat," no specific hazard type named.
    17. absent: 'anonymous call of threat' is vague, no specific hazard type stated.
    18. absent: 'anonymous call of threat' is generic, no specific hazard named.
    19. present: 'anonymous call of threat' referenced, though vague.
    20. absent: "threat at the library" is vague, unspecified nature of threat
    21. absent: Only refers to an 'anonymous call of threat', no specific hazard type named.
    22. absent: Refers only to 'threat' at the library without specifying type.
    23. absent: Only 'anonymous call of threat' generic term, no specific hazard type named.
    24. absent: 'Threat at the library' is vague, describes an anonymous call rather than a named hazard.
    25. absent: 'threat' is generic, no specific hazard type named.
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: 'the library' is named as the location.

    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: 'the library' named.
    2. present: 'the library' named.
    3. present: 'the library' named.
    4. present: The library is specified.
    5. present: 'the library' specified.
    6. present: 'the library' referenced.
    7. present: 'the library'.
    8. present: 'the library.'
    9. present: Names the library.
    10. present: Names "the library"
    11. present: Names the library.
    12. present: The library referenced.
    13. present: Names the library.
    14. present: Names 'the library'.
    15. present: The library specified.
    16. present: Names "the library."
    17. present: 'at the library'.
    18. present: 'the library' named.
    19. present: 'the library'.
    20. present: "the library" specified
    21. present: Names 'the library.'
    22. present: The library specified.
    23. present: 'the library' given.
    24. present: Names 'the library'.
    25. present: 'the library' given.
  • Guidanceabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: this is an all-clear resolution notice with no protective action instructed.

    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. absent: No protective action instructed, this is a resolution notice.
    2. absent: No protective action, message is an all-clear stating no immediate threat.
    3. absent: No protective action instructed, this is an all-clear.
    4. absent: No protective action instructed, an all-clear notice.
    5. absent: No protective action instructed; this is an all-clear notice.
    6. absent: No protective action given, states no threat found.
    7. absent: No protective action instructed, states 'no immediate threat'.
    8. absent: No protective action instructed.
    9. absent: No protective action instructed.
    10. absent: No protective action instructed, message is an all-clear
    11. absent: No protective instruction, message only states all clear.
    12. absent: No protective action instructed, only informational all clear.
    13. absent: No protective action instructed, message is a resolution notice.
    14. absent: No protective action instructed.
    15. absent: No protective action instructed, message is an all-clear.
    16. absent: No protective action instructed; states no immediate threat found.
    17. absent: No protective action instructed; message is informational all-clear.
    18. absent: No protective action instructed, this is an all-clear notice.
    19. absent: 'All clear' releases restriction, no ongoing action instructed.
    20. absent: No protective action instructed, this is an all-clear
    21. absent: No protective action instructed; states no immediate threat found.
    22. absent: No protective action instructed, states all clear.
    23. absent: No protective action instructed, states no immediate threat found.
    24. absent: No protective action instructed.
    25. absent: No protective action instructed; states no immediate threat.
  • Timeabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: no clock time or date is given.

    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. absent: No clock time or date given.
    2. absent: No clock time or recency marker given.
    3. absent: No clock time or recency marker given.
    4. absent: No clock time or date given.
    5. absent: No clock time or date given.
    6. absent: No clock time given.
    7. absent: No clock time or date given.
    8. absent: No time reference given.
    9. absent: No clock time or date given.
    10. absent: No clock time or date given
    11. absent: No clock time or recency reference given.
    12. absent: No clock time or date given.
    13. absent: No clock time or date given.
    14. absent: No clock time or date given.
    15. absent: No specific time given.
    16. absent: No clock time or date given.
    17. absent: No clock time given.
    18. absent: No clock time or recency term given.
    19. absent: No clock time or date given.
    20. absent: No clock time or date given
    21. absent: No clock time or date given.
    22. absent: No clock time or date given.
    23. absent: No clock time or recency marker present.
    24. absent: No clock time or date given.
    25. absent: No clock time or date given.
  • Impactabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous: the message states 'no immediate threat,' explicitly negating any stated consequence.

    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. absent: 'no immediate threat' states absence of impact.
    2. absent: No stated consequence, explicitly 'no immediate threat'.
    3. absent: No stated consequence or severity; states no immediate threat.
    4. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    5. absent: 'no immediate threat' negates any stated consequence.
    6. absent: 'no immediate threat' explicitly negates impact.
    7. absent: No stated consequence; explicitly says no immediate threat.
    8. absent: 'no immediate threat' explicitly negates any harm.
    9. absent: No stated consequence or severity, states no immediate threat.
    10. absent: States no immediate threat determined, no consequence conveyed
    11. absent: No stated consequence, and no immediate threat is found.
    12. absent: No stated consequence, states no immediate threat found.
    13. absent: States no immediate threat determined, no stated harm severity.
    14. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    15. absent: No stated harm or consequence, states no immediate threat.
    16. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    17. absent: States 'no immediate threat', no consequence described.
    18. absent: States 'no immediate threat,' no stated harm.
    19. absent: 'no immediate threat' states resolution, no consequence.
    20. absent: States "no immediate threat," no stated danger
    21. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    22. absent: No stated consequence described, states no immediate threat.
    23. absent: No stated consequence, message states 'no immediate threat'.
    24. absent: No stated consequence or severity.
    25. absent: States no immediate threat, no severity conveyed.

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

About this analysis
Context

Background

Bowling Green State University is a public R2 doctoral university in Bowling Green, Ohio, with about 20,000 students. On the morning of Monday, November 10, 2025, at 9:53 AM EST, the City of Bowling Green Police Division received an anonymous call to a non-emergency line claiming an active shooter was inside Jerome Library, BGSU's main academic library. The dispatcher flagged the call as potentially false but, out of an abundance of caution, BGSU Police, city officers, and Wood County deputies responded. Officers conducted two full sweeps of the library, talked with people on scene who reported nothing unusual, and declared an all-clear. The first AlertBG text message reached students at 11:14 AM EST, 81 minutes after the call and after the police all-clear had already been issued. An email followed at 11:28 AM EST and a final email at 4:46 PM EST. The incident was BGSU's first swatting call, and the delayed notification drew sharp criticism from students and Falcon Media. The same morning, Eastern Illinois University received a parallel anonymous armed-person call, but EIU sent its first alert in about 5 minutes, roughly 76 minutes sooner.
Analysis

Key Findings

BGSU's first AlertBG notification arrived 81 minutes after the call to police
The first message students received was an 'all-clear' rather than an 'initial' alert, an unusual sequence that left students learning about the threat from rumors rather than the university
On the same morning, Eastern Illinois University received a parallel anonymous threat call and sent its first alert in about 5 minutes
BGSU followed the SMS all-clear with emails at 11:28 AM and 4:46 PM EST, a multi-message sequence spanning about six hours
Outcome
No injuries occurred. BGSU Police, Bowling Green Police Division, and Wood County Sheriff's deputies conducted two full sweeps of Jerome Library, confirming no shooter, no firearm, and no signs of an active threat. The call was determined to be a swatting hoax. BGSU faced significant student criticism over the 81-minute delay between the call and the first AlertBG notification.
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. Student Paper
    BGSU's swatting call: What went wrong? (BG Falcon Media)
    bgfalconmedia.com
    archived copy
  2. Student Paper
    BREAKING: BGSUPD responds to threat at Jerome Library (BG Falcon Media)
    bgfalconmedia.com
    archived copy
  3. News
    'False alarm': Authorities determine 'no immediate threat' at BGSU library (13abc)
    13abc.com
    archived copy
  4. News
    BGSU receives swatting call for active shooter (Sentinel-Tribune)
    sent-trib.com
    archived copy
  5. News
    'No immediate threat' on BGSU campus after anonymous call (WTOL)
    wtol.com
    archived copy
  6. News
    Anonymous threat made on BGSU campus; determined to be false alarm (BG Independent News)
    bgindependentmedia.org
    archived copy
  7. Official
    AlertBG (BGSU Public Safety)
    bgsu.edu
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "Bowling Green State University: Hoax call claiming a library shooter; two sweeps found no threat." Incident of November 10, 2025. Added May 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/bowling-green-state-university-swatting-2025-11-10/

Download case JSON

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

Tags
swattingfalse-alarmohiopublic-r2alertbgnotification-timingdelayed-notificationlibrary-targetverbatimHoax
Added May 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion