Campus Alert Archive
UT Austin

Shooting, July 13, 2024

AI-generated · every claim is source-linked
TXshootingemergency notificationhigh confidence
Compare →
Confirmed Threat

Around 8:00 p.m. CDT on Saturday, July 13, 2024, UT Austin police responded to reports of gunshots fired near the Moody Center at 2001 Robert Dedman Drive, in the area between the basketball arena and the former site of the Frank Erwin Center. UTPD pushed a UT Alert warning the community to avoid the area as officers, Austin police, and Texas DPS troopers searched for a suspect described as a white or Hispanic man with long dark hair in a flannel shirt. No injuries were reported.

Alerts
4
Response
0 min
Killed
0
Injured
0
Institution
The University of Texas at Austin
Public R1 · TX
All UT Austin cases →
~53,000 studentsUT Alert
Official alert policy
Read when and how UT Austin says it will use Longhorn Alert: summarized, quoted, and analyzed.
Documented Timeline

Alert Sequence

4 messages in sequence · 4 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 ALERTTwitter/X
Verified verbatim253 chars
ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION - Officers are responding to a report of shots fired near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr. Please avoid the area while officers investigate. No reports of injuries at this time. More information to follow.
Verify this quote
@UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim raw t.co)x.comfind archived copies
Pushed shortly after the 8:00 p.m. CDT 911 call on Saturday, July 13, 2024
Names the intersection of East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Robert Dedman Drive, the southeast corner of campus, near the Moody Center and LBJ Presidential Library
The initial description (white male, long black hair, flannel) was later refined by detectives reviewing surveillance video to a more detailed description with clothing brand specifics
Verified exact official X/status text; prior reconstruction annotations removed per 2026-07-18 audit.
UPDATETwitter/X+13 min
Verified verbatim215 chars
INCIDENT UPDATE - Continue to avoid the area of Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr. If you are in the immediate area, please stay indoors as officers continue to investigate. More information to follow.
Verify this quote
@UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim INCIDENT UPDATE)x.comfind archived copies
Exact text recovered from @UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim INCIDENT UPDATE)
UPDATETwitter/X+26 min
Verified verbatim276 chars
UPDATE - Officers are searching the area for suspect. Description: White male with long, black hair. Last seen wearing: white and black flannel shirt and a black backpack. If you see this person, do not approach. Call 911 or message us on LiveSafe: http://utex.as/livesafeut
Verify this quote
@UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim raw t.co)x.comfind archived copies
Exact text recovered from @UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim suspect description UPDATE)
ALL CLEARTwitter/X+52 min
Verified verbatim279 chars
FINAL- No additional shots have been heard/reported since the initial incident. Suspect appears to have fled the area. No injuries have been reported and there is no ongoing threat to the community. Officers continue to investigate, no further action is needed from the public.
Verify this quote
@UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim FINAL Moody Center update)x.comfind archived copies
Verified complete alert text on https://x.com/UTAustinPolice/status/1812310136503070789 (@UTAustinPolice); archiveUrl null (X status). characterCount=279.
The all-clear came after a multi-agency search by UTPD, the Austin Police Department, and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers
No suspect was apprehended; the investigation continued via surveillance video review and a public assistance request issued the following week
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.

ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION - Officers are responding to a report of shots fired near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr. Please avoid the area while officers investigate. No reports of injuries at this time. More information to follow.

  • Sourcepresent15/25

    Final assessment

    A majority of reads accept that 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION' paired with 'Officers are responding' implies police as the issuing authority, though a sizable minority found no named agency or branded system; the majority prevails.

    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: Labeled 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION' with 'officers responding' as issuing authority.
    2. absent: No sender or authority named, only generic 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION' header.
    3. absent: 'Officers are responding' implies police but no named agency, university, or branded alert signature.
    4. present: Labeled 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION' with officers responding
    5. present: Titled "ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION" with officers responding
    6. present: "Officers are responding" implies police as the authority, sent as campus notification.
    7. present: 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION - Officers are responding' implies police as source.
    8. present: Labeled 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION' with officers responding.
    9. present: "ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION" with officers responding
    10. present: 'Officers are responding' identifies police as the authority.
    11. present: 'Officers are responding' implies police authority sending the notification.
    12. present: Titled 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION' from officers
    13. absent: Only says 'Officers are responding,' no named agency or branded alert signature.
    14. absent: Labeled generically "ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION" with no named agency or branded system, only "officers".
    15. absent: No sender name, agency, or branded signature is given, only 'Officers'.
    16. absent: No named agency or branded signature, just 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION'.
    17. present: 'Officers are responding' implies police as issuing authority.
    18. present: 'Officers are responding' implies police as issuing authority
    19. present: Refers to 'Officers... responding', implying police authority.
    20. absent: Only generic "Officers" are mentioned, no named agency or branded alert signature.
    21. present: Says 'Officers are responding', identifying police as sender/authority.
    22. absent: 'ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION' has no named authority, agency, or branded alert system.
    23. absent: No agency or branded signature named, only generic 'Officers'.
    24. absent: No sender name, agency, or branded system identified, just 'Officers'.
    25. present: "ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION" with "Officers are responding"
  • Hazardpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous agreement: the message names 'shots fired' as the specific 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: States 'shots fired'.
    2. present: 'shots fired' named specifically.
    3. present: 'report of shots fired'.
    4. present: 'shots fired' named
    5. present: Names "shots fired"
    6. present: "shots fired" names the hazard.
    7. present: 'report of shots fired' names the hazard.
    8. present: States 'a report of shots fired'.
    9. present: "shots fired"
    10. present: 'report of shots fired'.
    11. present: States shots fired near the intersection.
    12. present: States 'report of shots fired'
    13. present: Reports 'shots fired near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    14. present: States "shots fired" specifically.
    15. present: 'shots fired near' names the hazard.
    16. present: 'shots fired' names the hazard.
    17. present: 'shots fired' names the hazard.
    18. present: 'report of shots fired'
    19. present: 'shots fired near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    20. present: States "shots fired".
    21. present: States 'shots fired'.
    22. present: States 'shots fired'.
    23. present: 'report of shots fired'.
    24. present: Names 'shots fired'.
    25. present: "shots fired"
  • Locationpresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous agreement: the message names the specific intersection, Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.

    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: Near 'Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    2. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    3. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    4. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    5. present: Names "Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr."
    6. present: "near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr." given.
    7. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    8. present: Gives intersection 'Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'.
    9. present: "near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr."
    10. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    11. present: Names Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.
    12. present: Names intersection 'Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    13. present: Names the intersection directly.
    14. present: Names "Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr."
    15. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr' given.
    16. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    17. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    18. present: Names Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.
    19. present: Names the specific intersection.
    20. present: "near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr."
    21. present: Names 'Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    22. present: Gives 'Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    23. present: 'near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    24. present: Names intersection 'Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr.'
    25. present: "near Martin Luther King Blvd. and Robert Dedman Dr."
  • Guidancepresent25/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous agreement: the message instructs recipients to 'avoid the area while officers investigate.'

    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: Instructs to 'avoid the area'.
    2. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate.'
    3. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate.'
    4. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate'
    5. present: Instructs to "avoid the area"
    6. present: "Please avoid the area while officers investigate."
    7. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate.'
    8. present: Instructs 'Please avoid the area'.
    9. present: instructs to "avoid the area"
    10. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate.'
    11. present: Tells recipients to avoid the area.
    12. present: Tells recipients to 'avoid the area'
    13. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate.'
    14. present: Instructs to "avoid the area".
    15. present: 'Please avoid the area' instructs recipients.
    16. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate.'
    17. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate.'
    18. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate'
    19. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate'.
    20. present: "Please avoid the area while officers investigate."
    21. present: Instructs to 'avoid the area'.
    22. present: Instructs to 'avoid the area'.
    23. present: 'Please avoid the area while officers investigate.'
    24. present: Instructs to 'avoid the area'.
    25. present: "Please avoid the area while officers investigate"
  • Timeabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous agreement: no clock time or date is given, only the vague present-tense phrase 'at this time.'

    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 given, only 'at this time'.
    2. absent: No clock time or date; 'at this time' only refers to injury status, not incident time.
    3. absent: No clock time or recency marker beyond implied immediacy.
    4. absent: No clock time or date given
    5. absent: No specific time or recency term given
    6. absent: No clock time or explicit recency term given beyond present tense.
    7. absent: No clock time or date; only 'at this time'.
    8. absent: No clock time given, only 'at this time'.
    9. absent: no clock time or date given
    10. absent: No clock time or date given.
    11. absent: No clock time or date given.
    12. absent: No specific time or recency marker given
    13. absent: No clock time or date given.
    14. absent: No clock time or date given, just "at this time".
    15. absent: No clock time or recency term is included.
    16. absent: No clock time or date given.
    17. absent: No clock time or recency term given.
    18. absent: No clock time or explicit recency marker 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 recency marker given.
    23. absent: No clock time or date given.
    24. absent: No clock time or date given, only 'at this time' implicit.
    25. absent: no clock time or explicit recency word given
  • Impactabsent0/25

    Final assessment

    Unanimous agreement: 'No reports of injuries at this time' negates rather than states a potential consequence or severity.

    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: States 'no reports of injuries', not a stated potential harm.
    2. absent: No stated potential harm beyond noting no injuries reported.
    3. absent: 'No reports of injuries at this time' negates rather than states impact.
    4. absent: 'No reports of injuries' is not stated harm, it negates impact
    5. absent: States "No reports of injuries", not a stated potential harm
    6. absent: "No reports of injuries at this time" states absence of harm, not potential impact.
    7. absent: States 'No reports of injuries at this time', not a stated potential consequence.
    8. absent: States 'No reports of injuries at this time', not a stated severity.
    9. absent: states no injuries reported, no stated potential harm
    10. absent: No stated harm; notes 'no reports of injuries' which is an absence of impact.
    11. absent: No stated potential harm beyond noting no injuries reported.
    12. absent: Only notes 'No reports of injuries at this time', no stated potential harm
    13. absent: States 'No reports of injuries,' not a stated potential harm.
    14. absent: Only notes "No reports of injuries at this time", not potential harm.
    15. absent: States 'No reports of injuries', not a stated potential harm.
    16. absent: States 'No reports of injuries at this time', not a forward-looking impact statement.
    17. absent: 'No reports of injuries at this time' negates rather than states impact.
    18. absent: States 'No reports of injuries at this time', not a stated potential harm
    19. absent: 'No reports of injuries' is reassurance, not a stated consequence.
    20. absent: "No reports of injuries" negates rather than states impact.
    21. absent: No stated consequence, only 'no reports of injuries'.
    22. absent: States 'No reports of injuries' but no forward-looking severity statement.
    23. absent: No stated consequence beyond 'no reports of injuries'.
    24. absent: States 'No reports of injuries', not a stated potential harm.
    25. absent: states "No reports of injuries at this time" rather than a potential harm statement

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

About this analysis
Context

Background

UT Austin's July 13, 2024 shots-fired alert came on a quiet summer Saturday evening, when most of the 53,000-student campus was empty. UTPD received the 911 call around 8:00 p.m. CDT, with witnesses reporting possible gunshots near the Moody Center at 2001 Robert Dedman Drive, the new basketball arena that had opened in 2022 to replace the Frank Erwin Center. The location is on the southeast corner of campus, near the LBJ Presidential Library and the intersection of East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Robert Dedman Drive. UTPD issued a UT Alert warning students, staff, and Austin residents to avoid the area, then conducted a coordinated search with the Austin Police Department and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers. No injuries were reported, no additional gunfire occurred, and no suspect was located on scene. The following week, UTPD took the unusual step of releasing surveillance images and a detailed suspect description, asking the public to help identify a white or Hispanic male in his 20s wearing a black Miami Heat cap with a red brim. The Moody Center incident illustrates the increasing role of campus police in policing the porous edges of large urban universities, where MLK Boulevard separates campus from a dense entertainment district and the LBJ Library complex. UT Alert is operated through the UTPD Incident Notifications system.
Analysis

Key Findings

The Saturday-evening, summer-session timing meant the campus was nearly empty, but UTPD still pushed a full UT Alert, a precaution that reflects how the boundary between campus and Austin's dense surrounding neighborhoods is treated
UTPD's subsequent release of detailed suspect imagery, including clothing brand specifics down to the Nike swoosh, illustrates how campus departments are increasingly leaning on the public for surveillance-video identification
No suspect was ever apprehended in publicly available records, raising questions about how campus shots-fired alerts close out when there is no arrest or definitive identification
Outcome
Officers searched the area and were unable to locate a suspect, but [UTPD released surveillance images and asked the public for help identifying him](https://police.utexas.edu/news/utpd-seeks-community-assistance-identifying-suspect-shots-fired-call). The suspect was described as a white or Hispanic male between 20 and 30 years old, 5'7" to 5'9", medium build, wearing a black Miami Heat cap with a red brim, a gray Reebok hoodie with logo, dark denim pants, white Nike shoes with a black swoosh, and carrying a black backpack. No additional shots were reported after the initial incident.
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. News
    UTPD searching for suspect after report of shots fired near LBJ library (KXAN Austin)
    kxan.com
    archived copy
  2. News
    Shots fired on UT Austin campus, suspect at large: UTPD (FOX 7 Austin)
    fox7austin.com
    archived copy
  3. Official
    UTPD Seeks Community Assistance in Identifying Suspect from Shots Fired Call (UT Police Department)
    police.utexas.edu
    archived copy
  4. News
    UT police looking for suspect in connection with shots fired call (KXAN Austin)
    kxan.com
    archived copy
  5. Official
    Incident Notifications (UT Police Department)
    police.utexas.edu
    archived copy
  6. Social
    @UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim ON-CAMPUS INCIDENT NOTIFICATION)
    x.com
    archived copy
  7. Social
    @UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim FINAL update)
    x.com
    archived copy
  8. Official
    @UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim INCIDENT UPDATE)
    x.com
    archived copy
  9. Official
    @UTAustinPolice on X (verbatim raw t.co)
    x.com
    archived copy
Cite this case

Campus Alert Archive. "The University of Texas at Austin: Shooting, July 13, 2024." Incident of July 13, 2024. Added May 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/university-of-texas-austin-moody-center-shots-fired-2024-07-13/

Download case JSON

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

Tags
shots-firedbig-12-flagshiptexasut-alertmoody-centerlbj-librarysummer-incidentno-suspect-locatedmulti-agency-response
Added May 2026Updated July 2026Via ingestion