The House That Should Have Been Safe
A home is supposed to be the place where a family is safest. It is where children go to sleep, where arguments should end without tragedy, and where the ordinary routines of living together continue from one day to the next. In Erie, Pennsylvania, on October 9, 2026, that expectation ended in violence.
Authorities say a 45-year-old man killed eight people at his home before taking his own life. Seven of those killed were his relatives; among the victims were two young children and a pregnant woman. Investigators had not established a motive. Nothing reported so far lets us say whether this tragedy came with warnings someone could reasonably have recognized.
That uncertainty belongs at the center of this story, because Erie is not the only community confronting this kind of loss. Even as homicide rates have fallen across many American cities, family mass killings have risen sharply compared with an exceptionally low 2025. That comparison is alarming, but it does not prove an unprecedented or lasting trend.
Numbers cannot tell us what happened behind every closed door. They can, however, force us to ask what we know about danger inside families, what signs sometimes appear before a killing, and whether the systems meant to protect people are equipped to respond before another family becomes a statistic.
This Community Is Powered by You
What started as a small circle has grown into something much bigger, and it’s all because of readers like you.
Every time you forward this email, post it on socials, or bring someone new into the fold, you’re helping build one of the most passionate, independent communities out there.
Want to keep the momentum going?
Share this newsletter with someone who should be part of this conversation.
Thank you for being here. It means everything.
The Numbers Tell Two Different Stories
For much of America, the latest homicide statistics are encouraging. According to the Council on Criminal Justice, homicides fell 18% during the first six months of 2026 compared with the same period in 2025 across 30 cities reporting data. Compared with the first half of 2022, the homicide rate in those cities had fallen by 51%.
Another set of numbers tells a troubling story, however. According to figures from the Associated Press, USA Today, and Northeastern University’s mass-killing database, just six family mass killings occurred nationwide in 2025, the lowest annual number in at least two decades. By September 19, 2026, at least 17 had already occurred. The underlying database defines a mass killing as an incident in which four or more people are killed within 24 hours, excluding the perpetrator. These figures concern killings involving families. Some end in suicide. Others do not.
Before calling this an unprecedented surge, we need perspective. In 2022, the same database recorded 17 family mass killings, ten of which ended in murder-suicide. The unusually low 2025 total magnifies the apparent jump in 2026. The latest figures are disturbing, but they do not establish that family mass killings have reached a level America has never experienced before. These crimes remain relatively rare, and annual numbers can fluctuate substantially. One year’s increase does not establish a lasting trend.
There is another figure worth examining. In the Council on Criminal Justice’s midyear report, the average reported domestic violence rate increased 8% in the eight cities providing comparable data, while homicides declined in the separate 30-city sample. Domestic violence in those eight cities nevertheless remained 7% below its 2019 level. Reported domestic violence is not the same as family mass murder, and these figures do not establish a connection between the trends. They remind us that progress against homicide does not necessarily mean every form of violence inside the home is improving at the same pace.
If America is reducing homicide overall, why are families still experiencing violence on this scale? To answer that, we have to examine what happens before the killings.
What Happens Before a Family Is Killed?
These killings do not follow a single script. Some emerge from relationships marked by threats, controlling behavior, or previous abuse. Others occur without a documented history that would have alerted police, neighbors, or relatives. Looking for patterns is necessary, but pretending those patterns can reliably identify a future killer is dangerous.
Research on intimate-partner homicide has identified previous domestic violence, threats to kill, access to firearms, and separation from a controlling partner as serious risk factors. A landmark study led by Jacquelyn Campbell found that leaving or becoming estranged from a controlling abuser could be a period of heightened danger. The same study identified an abuser’s access to a firearm as a significant risk factor for intimate-partner homicide. A credible threat becomes especially concerning when the person making it has access to a lethal weapon. That research concerns intimate-partner homicide, not family mass killings specifically, and it cannot predict which household will experience such an attack, nor does it mean leaving causes the violence or that someone should remain in an abusive home. Responsibility belongs to the person choosing violence.
In some cases, the danger extends beyond the relationship itself. Children, parents, and other relatives may become victims alongside an intended partner. A child has no control over an adult’s jealousy, anger, or determination to dominate another person. Yet that child may still become a victim. The danger can reach people who never took part in the conflict, leaving entire generations of a family exposed to one person’s decision to use violence.
Economic pressure, unemployment, divorce, substance misuse, and personal crises may also appear in these cases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies numerous factors associated with intimate-partner violence, but risk factors are not verdicts. Millions of Americans experience hardship, depression, or divorce without harming anyone. Ordinary human struggles are not evidence that someone is capable of murder.
Even established risk factors cannot tell us who will commit a mass killing, and research on intimate-partner homicide cannot explain every family mass murder. The more useful question is what happens when dangerous behavior becomes visible. Does someone recognize it? Does anyone know where to turn? And when a credible warning reaches authorities, what happens next?
The Warning Signs We See, and the Ones We Don’t.
After a family is killed, the same question often follows: Were there warning signs? It is reasonable to ask, but hindsight can turn it into an accusation. An argument, a troubling remark, or a call to police may look unmistakable after a tragedy. The people who witnessed those moments did not know what would come next.
In September 2026, researchers Jason R. Silva and Adam Lankford examined 483 U.S. mass shootings from 2000 through 2023. They distinguished “leakage”—revealing violent intentions to someone other than an intended victim—from threats made directly to a potential victim. In 61% of family mass shootings, they found no documented disclosure of violent intentions through either route. That does not prove no warnings existed. It tells us what the available records showed. A direct threat may be known only to the person targeted; leakage may reach friends, coworkers, or classmates. Who knows about a danger affects whether anyone can seek help.
Across all the mass-shooting categories studied, only 54% of incidents with documented leakage or threats were reported before the attack. The researchers suggested that people may hesitate because they cannot tell whether a person making a threat will act on it. A statement can sound like anger at the time and a warning only after someone dies.
Among completed family mass shootings in which warnings of violent intent reached criminal justice authorities, 98% received a documented formal response. That is not 98% of all warning signs, and a recorded response does not establish that it was timely, adequate, or capable of preventing the killing. The study examined completed attacks, not incidents that intervention may have prevented.
We cannot blame victims or relatives for failing to predict murder from ambiguous encounters, but when specific, credible threats are reported, government has a duty to assess the danger seriously and act within the law. What can authorities actually do once they recognize a threat?
Knowing Someone Is Dangerous Is Not the Same as Being Able to Stop Them
Recognizing danger is one thing. Preventing violence is another. An officer may respond to repeated domestic disturbances, a court may hear allegations of threats, or a relative may report frightening behavior. Authorities must determine what the evidence supports, what the law permits, and what could reduce the danger. Suspicion alone does not justify every possible intervention.
The Lethality Assessment Program, developed in Maryland, allows responding officers to screen for serious domestic violence risks and connect survivors with advocates for safety planning. A National Institute of Justice evaluation found increased help-seeking and safety planning, along with reductions in the frequency and severity of violence survivors experienced. However, it could not reliably predict exactly who would commit lethal violence. It assesses danger, but it is not a crystal ball.
Courts have other options. Domestic violence protection orders can restrict contact, and qualifying orders or convictions can prohibit firearm possession. Some states also allow extreme risk protection orders, which can temporarily restrict firearms when legal standards for dangerousness are met. Rules differ, and enforcement is essential. A restriction offers little practical protection if prohibited firearms are never surrendered.
Even a properly issued order may leave a threatened parent needing transportation, emergency housing, childcare, legal help, and somewhere safe to take the children. A protection order cannot provide those things on its own. A remedy that exists on paper may offer little safety when practical help is unavailable. Leaving may also mean losing wages, finding accessible transportation, moving children between schools, or trying to keep an address confidential. These are not side issues for the person making a safety plan.
None of these measures guarantees the prevention of a family mass killing. Much of the research concerns intimate-partner violence more generally, but it identifies tools capable of reducing certain dangers. Are those tools working together when a family needs them, or does responsibility get lost between institutions?
When the Warning Reaches Government, Who Owns the Response?
A family facing credible threats should not have to understand government’s organizational chart to find protection, yet a response can involve local police, prosecutors, courts, state agencies, and shelters. Each has responsibilities, but no single institution necessarily controls the entire process. Poor coordination can leave a family navigating multiple offices while trying to escape one dangerous situation.
The Violence Against Women Act supports coordinated responses among law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and advocates. In a 2024 initiative, the Department of Justice identified problems that undermine protection: orders that went unserved, delays in sharing information with firearm background-check systems, and difficulties arranging storage for surrendered firearms. These are not abstract bureaucratic concerns. An order that is not served or enforced can leave someone exposed to the danger it was meant to address. Coordination has to mean more than a meeting between agencies. Someone must confirm who will serve the order, who will record the restriction, and who will follow up if the person subject to it does not comply.
Accountability still requires examining what happened, not assuming government failed whenever violence occurred. A formal response is not necessarily an effective intervention. Was it appropriate to the information available? Did authorities have the legal tools and resources to do more? Did the family obtain meaningful protection?
This is where government stewardship becomes measurable. Congress can establish federal protections, appropriate funding, and oversee federal programs. States write and administer many domestic violence laws. Local authorities carry out much of the immediate response, while community organizations provide practical help. Each level should be accountable for its responsibilities and for coordinating to fulfill them.
The Square New Deal does not demand that government predict every act of violence. It asks whether protective orders are served, credible threats are assessed, safeguards are enforced, and people seeking protection are actually helped. Government must respond to danger without letting suspicion replace due process.
Protection Cannot Mean Abandoning Constitutional Rights
Government must protect people from credible threats, but that does not give officials unlimited power over someone they believe might become dangerous. The Constitution protects the family seeking safety and the individual accused of threatening them. Ignoring either responsibility is a failure of stewardship.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court addressed part of this question in United States v. Rahimi. The Court ruled that someone found by a court to pose a credible threat to another person’s physical safety may be temporarily prohibited from possessing firearms without violating the Second Amendment. The ruling upheld a federal restriction involving a qualifying domestic violence protective order. It did not authorize firearm confiscation merely because someone seemed angry, troubled, or unpopular.
Other interventions have different requirements. Extreme risk protection orders generally require judicial findings and procedures to challenge restrictions, although state rules vary. Emergency action may precede a full hearing, but meaningful legal review remains essential. Involuntary psychiatric commitment is a separate, serious deprivation of liberty. The Supreme Court has required clear and convincing evidence for indefinite civil commitment, not ordinary suspicion.
These safeguards exist because government can make mistakes, accusations can be false, and extraordinary powers can be misused. At the same time, constitutional protections do not require authorities to ignore credible evidence of serious danger.
The Square New Deal asks government to exercise legitimate authority responsibly, not expand it every time a frightening event occurs. Families need enforceable laws, testable evidence, and decisions that can be challenged. The goal is neither unchecked power nor government paralysis. Due process shows that government intervention rests on evidence and lawful authority rather than fear alone. It protects the rights of every citizen.
Citizen Stewardship Does Not Mean Becoming a Detective
Constitutional limits on government do not mean the rest of us have no responsibility. Friends, relatives, teachers, and neighbors sometimes hear threats or notice fear at home, but citizen stewardship does not mean investigating a household, confronting a suspected abuser, or deciding who might become a killer. It means taking credible concerns seriously without pretending to know what we cannot.
When someone confides that they are being threatened or controlled, a useful response begins with listening. Ask what help they want, respect their decisions, and connect them with trained advocates. A ride, childcare, help securing important documents, or assistance finding shelter can make a difference. Insisting someone leave immediately or confronting the person they fear can make a dangerous situation worse. A survivor may be weighing risks an outsider cannot see, including threats against children or relatives. Respecting that judgment helps without taking control.
If violence appears imminent, emergency services may be necessary. Otherwise, confidential advice from a domestic violence advocate can help someone consider safer options. Not every family mass killing comes with recognizable warnings. Citizens cannot be held responsible for knowing the unknowable.
Government stewardship begins where citizen goodwill ends. People seeking protection need competent assistance, not a maze of referrals and unanswered calls. Communities can notice, listen, and support. Public institutions must be ready when that support is not enough.
A Family Shouldn’t Have to Become a Statistic Before We Ask These Questions
We began with a house in Erie, Pennsylvania, because a home is where people expect to be safe. After a family is killed, the country learns the number of victims, the location, and whatever details investigators can establish. Questions about prevention should not begin only after the names appear in a homicide report.
America’s falling homicide rate represents genuine progress, and we should acknowledge it. Nor should we turn one year’s resurgence in family mass killings into proof of a long-term epidemic. The numbers give us a reason to investigate. They cannot, by themselves, tell us whether the next family faces a danger someone might recognize before it becomes deadly.
Sometimes there are no warnings anyone could reasonably have acted upon. Other times, threats, police reports, protective orders, or requests for help exist. In those cases, accountability means asking what information was available, what the law permitted, what action was taken, and whether the systems designed to protect people actually worked. A completed form is not the same as a family reaching safety.
Citizen stewardship asks us to take credible danger seriously and support people seeking protection. Government stewardship demands public institutions that can provide lawful, meaningful assistance when needed. We cannot promise that every act of violence can be prevented, but when the warning signs of danger are visible before a family is destroyed, we owe those families more than an explanation of what went wrong afterward.
Support The Coffman Chronicle
The Coffman Chronicle believes government should be accountable, citizens should be informed, and the Constitution should come before ideology.
If you believe in independent journalism that follows the evidence and asks difficult questions, please consider becoming a paid subscriber if you can afford it. If not, reading and sharing this work helps keep the conversation going.
A stronger republic begins with informed citizens.
Sources
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979). Supreme Court Opinion.
Associated Press, USA Today, and Northeastern University. “Mass Killing Database.” Northeastern University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Berger, Eric. “‘Way Too Many Guns Around’: The Common Theme in US Family Killings.” The Guardian, September 19, 2026.
Campbell, Jacquelyn C., et al. “Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study.” American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 7 (2003): 1089–97.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Risk and Protective Factors.” February 8, 2024.
Lopez, Ernesto, and Bobby Boxerman. “Crime Trends in U.S. Cities: Mid-Year 2026 Update.” Council on Criminal Justice, July 2026.
National Domestic Violence Hotline. “Plan for Safety.” Accessed October 11, 2026.
National Institute of Justice. “How Effective Are Lethality Assessment Programs for Addressing Intimate Partner Violence?.” June 10, 2018.
Shaffrey, Ted. “Pennsylvania Shooter Who Killed 8 Was Family’s Patriarch, Father of Toddler Killed Says.” Associated Press, October 11, 2026.
Silva, Jason R., and Adam Lankford. “A Comprehensive Assessment of Leakage, Threats, Public Reporting, and Responses to Reports among Public, Family, and Felony Mass Shootings.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, September 14, 2026.
United States Department of Justice. “Readout of OVW Director Rosemarie Hidalgo’s Trip to Unveil Comprehensive Initiatives to Address the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Firearms.” August 1, 2024.
United States Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. “Resource Guide for Addressing the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Firearms.” Updated June 10, 2026.
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). Supreme Court Opinion.
...in spite of "specialists", the range of human behavior defies predictable understanding...we are a species subject to aberrant behavior, anger, emotion overcoming reason...today's anger
manifest as yelling & walking out the door can build & become tomorrows violence...mental health is a serious issue that requires deeper understanding, & a cultural environment that defuses frustrations before they overwhelm...perhaps we need not just an annual physical, but an annual mental health eval...