The phrase “going postal” is now tossed around whenever someone loses patience with a frozen printer, an endless meeting, or a coworker who replies to every email with “per my previous message.” Its real history, however, is anything but lighthearted.
The expression grew out of a succession of violent incidents involving current or former United States Postal Service employees, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s. News coverage connected the attacks into a frightening national pattern, and a grim new piece of American slang entered everyday conversation.
This article examines 10 people whose actions helped create or reinforce that association. It does not celebrate them, diagnose them from a distance, or treat their victims as supporting characters. The purpose is to understand what happened, what warning signs were missed, and why the popular stereotype ultimately became misleading.
What Does “Going Postal” Actually Mean?
In modern American English, “going postal” generally means becoming uncontrollably angry, especially in a workplace. The phrase is usually associated with retaliation against supervisors or coworkers after a dispute, disciplinary action, firing, or perceived humiliation.
The term became widely recognized after the 1986 Edmond, Oklahoma, post office massacre. Later attacks appeared to confirm a simple explanation: postal work was uniquely stressful, postal management was unusually harsh, and postal employees were more likely than other workers to become violent.
Reality turned out to be considerably more complicated. A federal commission that studied postal workplace safety concluded in 2000 that postal employees were not more violent than the national workforce. The researchers called the stereotype a “bad rap,” noting that the homicide rate among postal workers was lower than rates in several major industries.
In other words, the tragedies were real. The stereotype built around more than half a million ordinary mail carriers, clerks, mechanics, sorters, and managers was not.
1. Perry B. Smith: Johnston, South Carolina, 1983
An Early Warning Before the Phrase Existed
On August 19, 1983, former postal employee Perry B. Smith entered the post office in Johnston, South Carolina, and opened fire. Postmaster Charles McGee was killed, while two postal employees and a responding police officer were wounded.
Smith had previously resigned from the Postal Service. His case later reached the South Carolina Supreme Court, creating a detailed legal record of the attack. Although the expression “going postal” had not yet entered American slang, this incident is often included in timelines of postal workplace violence because it displayed a pattern that would soon become painfully familiar: a former employee returning to a workplace with a grievance and directing violence at people associated with it.
2. James Brooks: Anniston, Alabama, 1983
A Workplace Argument Turns Fatal
Only a few months after the Johnston shooting, postal custodian James Brooks became involved in a deadly confrontation at the Anniston, Alabama, post office. On December 2, 1983, Brooks killed Postmaster Oscar Johnson and wounded another postal supervisor.
Contemporary reports described the shooting as the result of a workplace argument. Brooks surrendered shortly afterward. The incident showed how quickly a long-running employee-management dispute could cross from resentment into violence when threats, access to weapons, and poor conflict resolution converged.
It also demonstrated an important problem with simple explanations. Workplace pressure may have formed part of the background, but millions of workers experience conflict without attacking anyone. A grievance can help investigators understand the path to violence; it does not excuse the decision to take that path.
3. Steven Brownlee: Atlanta, Georgia, 1985
Coworkers Intervene During a Night Shift
On March 6, 1985, Steven Wesley Brownlee opened fire in a mail-sorting area at Atlanta’s main post office. Brownlee had worked for the Postal Service for approximately 12 years. Two employees were killed and another was wounded.
The attack ended when coworkers restrained him until police arrived. Their intervention prevented the shooting from continuing, but it also placed unarmed employees in extraordinary danger. Modern emergency guidance generally emphasizes escaping when possible, hiding when escape is impossible, and physically confronting an attacker only as a last resort.
Brownlee’s case received national coverage, yet it was soon overshadowed by a much larger postal massacre the following year. By then, Americans were beginning to recognize something more than a collection of unrelated local crimes. The post office was becoming a national symbol of workplace rage.
4. Patrick Sherrill: Edmond, Oklahoma, 1986
The Massacre That Defined the Phrase
Patrick Henry Sherrill was a part-time letter carrier in Edmond, Oklahoma. Supervisors had criticized his performance, and he received another reprimand on August 19, 1986. The next morning, Sherrill entered the Edmond post office and attacked his coworkers.
Fourteen postal employees were killed and six were wounded before Sherrill died by suicide. The violence unfolded in minutes, but its cultural consequences lasted for decades. The Edmond massacre became one of the deadliest acts of workplace violence in modern American history and the central event associated with the origin of “going postal.”
National reporting emphasized Sherrill’s disciplinary problems and resentment toward management. Those details were relevant, but the resulting narrative often shrank 14 individual victims into a catchphrase about an angry mailman. Memorials in Edmond instead preserve their names, reminding visitors that the story belongs first to the people whose ordinary workday became a catastrophe.
5. John Merlin Taylor: Escondido, California, 1989
A “Model Employee” With Escalating Grievances
John Merlin Taylor had spent roughly 27 years working for the Postal Service and was reportedly regarded by some colleagues as a dependable employee. In August 1989, however, he killed his wife before traveling to the Orange Glen postal station in Escondido.
At the facility, Taylor killed two coworkers, wounded another employee, and then shot himself. He later died from his injury. Reporting after the attack described growing complaints about his job and earlier troubling behavior in his personal life.
The contrast between “model employee” and violent offender is unsettling, but it teaches an important lesson. Threat assessment cannot rely on whether someone has historically been polite, productive, or popular. Investigators evaluate changes in behavior, escalating grievances, threats, fixation on retaliation, preparation, and access to intended targets. A good attendance record is not a magic shield against a developing crisis.
6. Joseph Harris: Ridgewood, New Jersey, 1991
A Planned Attack Against Former Coworkers
Joseph M. Harris had been dismissed from his postal job after conflicts involving a supervisor. On October 10, 1991, he carried out a planned series of killings in northern New Jersey.
Harris first killed his former supervisor, Carol Ott, and her partner, Cornelius Kasten, at their home. He then went to the Ridgewood post office and killed former coworkers Donald McNaught and Johannes VanderPaauw as they arrived for work. Police arrested Harris after a lengthy standoff.
Unlike an impulsive explosion during a heated argument, Harris’s actions involved preparation, movement between locations, and the targeting of specific people. That distinction matters. Modern behavioral threat assessment focuses less on identifying a personality “type” and more on determining whether a person is progressing toward an attack through planning, surveillance, threats, or repeated fixation on a grievance.
7. Thomas McIlvane: Royal Oak, Michigan, 1991
Warnings That Failed to Produce Protection
Thomas McIlvane had been fired from his letter-carrier position in Royal Oak, Michigan, and unsuccessfully challenged the dismissal. After learning that an arbitrator would not reinstate him, McIlvane returned to the post office on November 14, 1991.
He killed four employees, wounded four others with gunfire, caused additional injuries as people escaped, and then died by suicide. Subsequent investigations revealed that McIlvane had made alarming statements before the attack. Employees were reportedly so concerned about his possible return that some had considered escape routes.
A congressional investigation criticized working conditions and the failure to respond effectively to warning signs. The Royal Oak case became a textbook example of fragmented information: different people knew different pieces of the threat, but no coordinated system assembled those pieces into a protective response.
Today, threat-assessment teams are designed to prevent exactly that kind of institutional shrugthe bureaucratic equivalent of everyone assuming someone else has already called security.
8. Larry Jasion: Dearborn, Michigan, 1993
A Promotion Dispute and a Reported Threat
On May 6, 1993, postal mechanic Larry Jasion attacked coworkers at a postal garage in Dearborn, Michigan. One employee, Gary Montes, was killed, and two other workers were wounded before Jasion died by suicide.
Contemporary reports indicated that Jasion was angry after a female coworker received a position he wanted. One of the wounded employees had reportedly raised concerns about a threatening comment, although coworkers did not generally consider Jasion dangerous before the shooting.
The Dearborn attack is important because it shows why workplace threats should not be dismissed merely because the speaker seems calm, familiar, or unlikely to act. At the same time, not every angry comment predicts violence. The answer is not panic or amateur profiling; it is a structured process that documents concerning behavior, gathers context, and determines an appropriate intervention.
9. Mark Richard Hilbun: Dana Point, California, 1993
A Multiday Spree Following Dismissal
Hours after the Dearborn shooting, another postal attack occurred across the country in Dana Point, California. Former employee Mark Richard Hilbun returned to the post office where he had worked and fatally shot letter carrier Charles Barbagallo. Another postal employee was wounded.
Authorities also linked Hilbun to the killing of his mother and to additional shootings during a multiday spree. He was eventually arrested. Reports indicated that the Postal Service had dismissed him after allegations of stalking or harassing a coworker.
The two postal attacks occurring on the same dayone in Michigan and one in Californiagave extraordinary momentum to the emerging “going postal” narrative. To the public, coincidence looked like confirmation. To news editors, the phrase was compact, memorable, and practically wrote its own headline. Nuance, as usual, was left waiting at the counter without the correct form.
10. Jennifer San Marco: Goleta, California, 2006
The Stereotype Returns After a Quieter Period
Jennifer San Marco was a former postal employee who had been removed from her workplace years earlier after colleagues became concerned about her behavior. On January 30, 2006, she killed a former neighbor in Santa Barbara and then entered a postal processing facility in nearby Goleta.
San Marco killed six postal employees before dying by suicide. Investigators later found writings indicating that she believed she was being targeted by a broad conspiracy. The attack became one of the deadliest workplace shootings committed by a woman in the United States.
Her case is sometimes reduced to a story about untreated mental illness. That explanation is incomplete and potentially stigmatizing. Most people experiencing mental health problems are not violent. Prevention depends on observable conduct and circumstancescredible threats, escalating fixation, preparations, target selection, serious deterioration, and refusal or inability to disengage from a grievancenot on casually labeling someone “crazy.”
Why the Postal Service Became the Symbol
The Postal Service was highly visible, geographically widespread, and one of the nation’s largest employers. Its facilities were found in nearly every community, while its workforce included veterans, career civil servants, temporary employees, clerks, mechanics, and carriers working under strict schedules.
Several high-profile attacks occurred close enough together for reporters and the public to perceive a pattern. Many also shared narrative ingredients that made them easy to connect: disciplinary disputes, perceived unfairness, dismissed employees, supervisors as targets, and attacks inside familiar workplaces.
Yet the federal Commission on a Safe and Secure Workplace found that postal workers were not uniquely violent. The mythology survived because vivid stories often overpower statistical context. Ten shocking cases are easier to remember than hundreds of thousands of people completing uneventful shifts, delivering birthday cards, prescription packages, tax notices, and catalogs nobody remembers ordering.
Experiences and Lessons Behind “Going Postal”
The Experience of an Ordinary Day Becoming Unrecognizable
One of the most disturbing features of workplace violence is how quickly a familiar environment becomes dangerous. A sorting floor, loading dock, garage, or supervisor’s office normally operates through routine. Employees know where the coffee sits, which machine jams, who arrives early, and which door sticks in humid weather. That familiarity creates emotional security, but it can also create physical vulnerability when the attacker already understands the building.
Survivors may remember small details with extraordinary clarity: a sound that initially seemed mechanical, coworkers suddenly running, an abandoned lunch, or a telephone ringing after everyone had taken cover. The workplace does not immediately return to being “just work” after such an event. Ordinary noises, entrances, uniforms, and shift changes can become trauma triggers.
The Experience of Seeing Warning Signs but Lacking a System
Several postal cases involved threats, alarming comments, interpersonal conflicts, stalking allegations, or behavior that frightened coworkers. The difficult question is not simply, “Why did nobody notice?” In many cases, people did notice. The more useful question is, “What could they realistically do with what they knew?”
An employee may worry that reporting a comment will seem dramatic. A supervisor may interpret a threat as venting. Security may lack information held by human resources, while human resources may not know what coworkers have heard. Each person possesses one puzzle piece and assumes the picture is probably harmless.
Effective threat assessment creates a place for those pieces to meet. It does not treat every frustrated employee as a criminal. It evaluates behavior, circumstances, escalation, targets, protective factors, and available interventions. Sometimes the answer is law enforcement. In other situations, it may involve leave, counseling, mediation, restricted access, increased security, or direct communication with people at risk.
The Experience of Returning After Violence
After cameras leave, surviving employees still have jobs, bills, families, and eventually another shift. Some facilities reopen. Others are remodeled, relocated, or memorialized. Workers may feel pressure to demonstrate resilience when they are still grieving coworkers and questioning whether management protected them.
Organizations often focus on physical recoveryreplacing damaged property, changing locks, hiring guards, or revising entry procedures. Emotional recovery is slower. Employees may need trauma-informed counseling, flexible leave, long-term mental health support, honest communication, and reassurance that reporting concerns will not invite retaliation.
Anniversary dates can reactivate grief years later. So can media coverage of a similar attack. Recovery is rarely a straight road; it is more like mail forwarding during a cross-country moveconfusing, delayed, and full of things arriving when nobody feels ready to open them.
The Experience of Being Stereotyped
The phrase also affected postal employees who had no connection to violence. Mail carriers and clerks became the subject of jokes suggesting they were one bad performance review away from attacking someone. A profession was turned into a punchline because a small number of offenders received enormous publicity.
That stereotype can discourage honest discussions of stress. An employee who says, “I am overwhelmed,” should be able to request support without coworkers treating the statement as either a joke or a threat. Likewise, genuinely concerning conduct should be evaluated seriously rather than hidden beneath humor.
Language matters because it influences what people notice. “Going postal” centers the employer and the offender. A more accurate discussion centers workplace violence, targeted behavior, surviving employees, victims’ families, organizational responsibility, and prevention.
The Experience-Based Lesson for Today’s Workplaces
The clearest lesson is that prevention requires more than a zero-tolerance slogan taped beside the break-room microwave. Employees need confidential reporting channels, trained threat-assessment professionals, emergency plans, access controls, respectful management practices, and visible follow-through when concerns are raised.
Managers should also distinguish ordinary conflict from behavior suggesting movement toward violence. Anger alone is common. More serious concern arises when anger combines with threats, fixation, stalking, target identification, weapon preparation, fascination with previous attackers, or attempts to bypass security.
No checklist can predict human behavior perfectly. The goal is not certainty; it is intervention before certainty arrives in the form of an emergency. Workplaces cannot eliminate every risk, but they can make it much harder for warning signs to disappear into separate filing cabinets.
Conclusion: Remember the History, Retire the Stereotype
The 10 people examined here committed different crimes under different circumstances. Some acted after dismissal or discipline. Others were driven by personal disputes, financial pressure, fixation, paranoia, or a mixture of grievances that cannot be reduced to one neat motive.
Together, their actions created the cultural shorthand “going postal.” However, the phrase tells us less about postal workers than it does about the way Americans process rare, frightening events. We compress complex tragedies into catchy language because a label feels easier to understand than a chain of institutional failures, personal decisions, missed opportunities, and unpredictable human behavior.
The responsible lesson is not that postal employees are dangerous. It is that every organization needs credible reporting systems, behavioral threat assessment, fair management, emergency preparation, and meaningful support for workers under severe stress.
The mail was never the problem. The real problem was violenceand the repeated failure to recognize when an individual was moving from grievance toward action.
