Former NASCAR Driver's Dogs Attack Ma...

Former NASCAR Driver's Dogs Attack Mail Carrier 22 min ago

There are 42 comments on the Charlotte Channel 9 story from Apr 22, 2011, titled Former NASCAR Driver's Dogs Attack Mail Carrier 22 min ago. In it, Charlotte Channel 9 reports that:

When a mail carrier tried to deliver a package too big for a homeowner's mailbox, she tried to drop it off at the home's front door.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Charlotte Channel 9.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Buzz

Lincolnton, NC

#1 Apr 22, 2011
This is absurd that his dogs were contained and put in confinement. They were behind their own gait on their own property. She went past a "No Trespassing" sign & "Beware of Dog" sign. My carrier leaves a US postcard in my box all the time for over sized letters.

“RaiderNation of Domination”

Since: May 07

Some West Texas County

#2 Apr 22, 2011
Buzz wrote:
This is absurd that his dogs were contained and put in confinement. They were behind their own gait on their own property. She went past a "No Trespassing" sign & "Beware of Dog" sign. My carrier leaves a US postcard in my box all the time for over sized letters.
I agree if that is the case...she put herself at risk by passing signs that say "No Trespassing" and "Beware of Dog"

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#3 Apr 23, 2011
That is weird,a mail carrier getting bitten by a dog.I have never heard tell of it.
NCAG

Long Beach, CA

#4 Apr 23, 2011
For real, if the carrier delivers there regularly surely they knew about the dogs. I see NO laws broken here, the dogs were contained and warnings posted. I hope the carrier is ok but damn, you dont go into a yard where its fenced and dogs are present with warning signs. Guess they dont teach that in carrier school!! But just because the dogs had some pit in them they have to put them in jail. I say lock the carrier up for trespassing!!
The Fat and the Furious

Rochester, MI

#5 Apr 23, 2011
So, you believe that it's the carrier's fault that these dogs were aggressive and attacked her? My delivery person has been in my yard many times, as have UPS, Fedex, etc. My dogs have yet to attack any of them. You know wjy that is? Because, my dogs are trained. So, let me give you a little hypothetical situation and you can chew on it for a while: Lets say a little girl came to seel Girl Scout cookies at Jeremy's home and those same dogs attacked and maimed (or maybe even killed her.) You'd be alright with that? We should just let the dogs go about their business because she chose to enter the yard? Funny how things seem different if we put a little context in there that pulls on the old heartstring, eh? Another example: Lets say Jeremy had a sign (beware of gun) It would than be ok for him to come out and shoot the mail carrier and suffer no consequence? I mean, come on, he had a sign and all.

You see, you are responible for what happens on your property and yes, that even includes other peoples bad decisions. You are sure as hell responible for others safety on your property, especially in matters where their injuriis are a direct result of your actions or lack thereof. In this case, Jeremy's dogs being violent and attacking this woman were a result of Jeremy's lack of having his dogs trained properly. This woman wasn't trespassing, she was conducting busines on the property and trying to be helpful by dropping the package off, instead of them having to later pick it up or have it redelivered. And, did you ever consider this: Maybe she, and other carriers and delivery people, have been on the property many times in the past without issue. You don't know the facts of the situation and neither do I. The difference is that I don't jump to conclusions and immediately blame her and think it's unjust to take the dogs. Besides, my understanding is that the dogs were taken because it was unclear whether or not they were up to date on their rabies shots. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, that's plenty of justification, considering that they just maimed someone. Also, I've seen no reference to the fact that Jeremy had signs posted about the dogs or even that his property was fenced. Both of those things may well be true, but I haven't seen that in any story I've read about the incident.

“RaiderNation of Domination”

Since: May 07

Some West Texas County

#6 Apr 23, 2011
Fat and furious for real, are you really not that bright? I mean don't you have ANY common sense. If you see a dog in a yard and there are signs up warning you, then it's probably not a good idea to enter.

You are right that you are responisble for what happens on your property, but if you have a warning sign up that should be a fair enough warning and if one is dumb enough to procede with actions after being warned then it serves them right for ignoring it. That's what's wrong with today's society; the system is designed to save stupid people and make the smart pay for it. "No Trespassing" means you have no business beyond that point without permission. "Beware of Dog" means that there is a dog in there and will get you. I haven't seen anything about the signs in any story about this yet, but if that is the case then he is not guilty. However, if there are no signs posted then he is guilty.

BTW some people do have their dogs trained as guard dogs to attack trespassers and there is nothing wrong with that as long as the proper warning signs are present.
ThomasA

Oxford, AL

#7 Apr 23, 2011
What a show of Redneck Mentality!!!! Laws differ slightly from state but if she was conducting business and not making an attempt to kill or injure the property owner,she could be on the property sign or no sign because she was engaged in her job.. The meter readers,property tax appraisers,UPS,children, and yes,the postal person all have a right to enter the property without being harmed . The "Beware of Dog" is a two edged sword. You put up a sign and you are telling the world you knowingly have a vicious animal there. You don't put up a sign and you are not warning the world that you have a threat to their life waiting to pounce on someone without warning. The old misconception that you can shoot or have a dog attack anyone for setting foot on your property is quickly overshadowed when the judge keeps adding zeros to the lawsuit award. Also in some states,an apartment owner,rental house,or trailer park owner can be included in a judgement if the knowingly and willingly allowed a vicious dog to be kept on their property. Wouldn't hurt to read the fine print in your insurance policies. After you are over your limits,the court starts taking your toys.
The Fat and the Furious

United States

#8 Apr 24, 2011
TexasRaider wrote:
Fat and furious for real, are you really not that bright? I mean don't you have ANY common sense. If you see a dog in a yard and there are signs up warning you, then it's probably not a good idea to enter.
You are right that you are responisble for what happens on your property, but if you have a warning sign up that should be a fair enough warning and if one is dumb enough to procede with actions after being warned then it serves them right for ignoring it. That's what's wrong with today's society; the system is designed to save stupid people and make the smart pay for it. "No Trespassing" means you have no business beyond that point without permission. "Beware of Dog" means that there is a dog in there and will get you. I haven't seen anything about the signs in any story about this yet, but if that is the case then he is not guilty. However, if there are no signs posted then he is guilty.
BTW some people do have their dogs trained as guard dogs to attack trespassers and there is nothing wrong with that as long as the proper warning signs are present.
I always love when some dumbass tries to call me, "not to bright." Especially when that dumbass couldn't be more wrong on their stance on a particular subject.

You feel free to keep some violent dogs on your property and let them attack someone. I won't be the fool who ends up with that someone taking a big chunk of my money, that'll be you. You'll also be the fool who may some criminal charges to go along with that nice chunk of cash. And lastly, you may be the fool who has to live with someone dying because you think you have some right to have a violent dog on your property. Hopefully, that someone won't be anyone close to you either. You know, a friend, family member, child, etc. You see, idiots who train their dogs to be violent, can't control when and with who, those dogs decide to unleash that violence. Feel free to tell the judge and jury that you had every right to train that animal to be aggressive and injure/kill someone. I'm sure, just like I'm trying to do now, they'll set you straight. The difference will be, listening to me, you won't suffer the consequences, however, if you have to have them set you straight than I'll doubt you'll get off so easily.

Despite what you think, the courts will have little sympathy on you and I doubt the family of the victim will either. Hopefully, you won't be part of that family. Also, as I mentioned previously, I've seen no reference to a sign being posted in any news reports that I've read. If you want to point me to one, I'll be more than happy to check it out. However, as I also mentioned, I really doesn't matter. Whether you suffer a legal consequence or a moral one from an incident such as this, who the hell would purposely put themselves though that? Other than a fool. If your dogs are violent than don't have them out during the day when people like mail carriers, UPS, Fedex, meader readers, children, etc. may potentially come onto your property, especially wnen you're home and it's daylight. which Jeremy obviously was. I'm pretty sure there wasn't much need of protection needed in the middle of the day against a mail carrier.

We'll wait and see when the lawsuit drops and maybe even criminal charges. I was under the impression that Jeremy's finances weren't exactly the best right now, so lets see in the end if we think he'd agree with me not being to bright or you. Don't hold your breath, because it's going to be you. Hopefully, at least he has some sympathy for the woman, unlike morons like you, and will let that be known, Regardless of all this drug stuff going on with Jeremy right now, I think he'll be a little more caring than foolish people such as yourself are. Lets just hope someday that something like this doesn't happen to someone you care about. I'd be willing to bet a billion dollars that your tune would change very quickly.
The Fat and the Furious

United States

#9 Apr 24, 2011
TexasRaider wrote:
Fat and furious for real, are you really not that bright? I mean don't you have ANY common sense. If you see a dog in a yard and there are signs up warning you, then it's probably not a good idea to enter.
You are right that you are responisble for what happens on your property, but if you have a warning sign up that should be a fair enough warning and if one is dumb enough to procede with actions after being warned then it serves them right for ignoring it. That's what's wrong with today's society; the system is designed to save stupid people and make the smart pay for it. "No Trespassing" means you have no business beyond that point without permission. "Beware of Dog" means that there is a dog in there and will get you. I haven't seen anything about the signs in any story about this yet, but if that is the case then he is not guilty. However, if there are no signs posted then he is guilty.
BTW some people do have their dogs trained as guard dogs to attack trespassers and there is nothing wrong with that as long as the proper warning signs are present.
Also, just to let you know, trespassing is hardly a killable offense. I think we can agree that Jeremy wouldn't be allowed to just pop out of the door and shoot the mail carrier or stab her repeatedly for being on his land. Why than, should his dogs be allowed to do what he would not? The answer is simple: They wouldn't.

Another thing I'll mention is that there's such a thing as implied trespassing. That means: People, such as a mail carrier, is not trespassing on your land as long as they are doing their job. They can't for instance, be there to deliver a package and than go into your garage to check out you car or decide to take a quick dip in your pool. As long as a mail carrier's purpose in being on your land is to perform their duties as a carrier than it's implied that they're are not trespassing on your land and therefore, should have every right to be safe as an invited guest would have.

“RaiderNation of Domination”

Since: May 07

Some West Texas County

#10 Apr 24, 2011
The Fat and the Furious wrote:
<quoted text>Also, just to let you know, trespassing is hardly a killable offense. I think we can agree that Jeremy wouldn't be allowed to just pop out of the door and shoot the mail carrier or stab her repeatedly for being on his land. Why than, should his dogs be allowed to do what he would not? The answer is simple: They wouldn't.
Like I said "You're not very bright." Anytime I've ever gotten a package too big for my mailbox, I've always had a letter in my mailbox that says "Come get it at the post office." That is what a mail carrier is supposed to do when it is dangerous for them to approach the front door. No you are not allowed to shoot somebody doing their job, but if they were warned about dogs and proceded anyways, then they've set themselves up for attack. Since the mail carrier entered an area that she was warned about, then I think she got what she deserved for being stupid enough to do such a thing. Court Cases like this often get ugly and I've even served on the jury for a similar one and I'd love to be on the jury for this case. If the carrier sujected herself to the danger, then Mayfield is not guilty. I rest my case

“RaiderNation of Domination”

Since: May 07

Some West Texas County

#11 Apr 24, 2011
ThomasA wrote:
What a show of Redneck Mentality!!!! Laws differ slightly from state but if she was conducting business and not making an attempt to kill or injure the property owner,she could be on the property sign or no sign because she was engaged in her job.. The meter readers,property tax appraisers,UPS,children, and yes,the postal person all have a right to enter the property without being harmed . The "Beware of Dog" is a two edged sword. You put up a sign and you are telling the world you knowingly have a vicious animal there. You don't put up a sign and you are not warning the world that you have a threat to their life waiting to pounce on someone without warning. The old misconception that you can shoot or have a dog attack anyone for setting foot on your property is quickly overshadowed when the judge keeps adding zeros to the lawsuit award. Also in some states,an apartment owner,rental house,or trailer park owner can be included in a judgement if the knowingly and willingly allowed a vicious dog to be kept on their property. Wouldn't hurt to read the fine print in your insurance policies. After you are over your limits,the court starts taking your toys.
It is preached at my job over and over YOUR SAFETY IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. That means if I'm a mail carrier or have some other type of job that requires me to enter one's property, it's my responsibility to acknowledge ANY posted warnings on the property. As I told the fat and furious I've already served on the jury for a similar case and I know how ugly these cases get. It really gets ugly when the defendant lives out in the country where there are no ordinances against dogs running loose.

Here's where I stand:
If the dog is fenced and there are signs: defendant not guilty
If the dog is loose and there are signs: defendant guilty
If the dog is fenced and no signs: defendant guilty
If the dog is lose and there are no signs: GUILTY AS CHARGED

I know why we have laws that defend people doing their jobs even though some people don't want ANYBODY on their property without invitation. However, when an owner of a mean dog has fenced the dog up and posted warning signs, then they've taken responsibility and if that's not enough responsibility, then I don't know what is. He has the right to own a mean dog if he wants to and posting a sign on his cage is fair warning. I do NOT agree with laws that help stupid people get away with stupid things like entering a fenced area that has a sign up that say "BEWARE OF DOG" From what I hear so far, Mayfield is not guilty.

“IN GOD WE TRUST”

Since: Jun 07

Raleigh

#12 Apr 24, 2011
Let's get down to the real question here. Which is, why does Mayfield need 5 attack dogs in his yard? Answer, to protect the meth lab in the garage. The certainly are there to protect all his valuables, he doesn't have any left. Heh Heh
NCAG

Long Beach, CA

#13 Apr 24, 2011
I dont want to be or seem to be unsympathetic to the carrier, I hope they get along alright. But for real, the dogs were only doing what they were supposed to, protect the property. Jeremy Mayfield being a former NASCAR driver more than likley had the dogs for protection. Im not a NASCAR driver and I got dogs for protection. Texas Raider is right, leaving the little card they leave in situations like this would have been the better choice for the carrier. the carrier was more than likley just tryin to do the job with good service, but damn, dont do me no favors and put yourself in harms way by something you are aware of from seeing the dogs on a daily basis. the carrier had to know the dogs were there and they would be aggressive. So I think the carrier should just get workmans comp and learn from this bad decicion. Again, I really hope the carrier is ok and heals fast and well, Godspeed to them!! But the carrier was in the wrong and Jeremy is not guilty of any wrong doing. Thats just my opinion. Carriewr had an out and didnt take it for safteys sake!!
ThomasA

Oxford, AL

#14 Apr 25, 2011
TexasRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
It is preached at my job over and over YOUR SAFETY IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. That means if I'm a mail carrier or have some other type of job that requires me to enter one's property, it's my responsibility to acknowledge ANY posted warnings on the property. As I told the fat and furious I've already served on the jury for a similar case and I know how ugly these cases get. It really gets ugly when the defendant lives out in the country where there are no ordinances against dogs running loose.
Here's where I stand:
If the dog is fenced and there are signs: defendant not guilty
If the dog is loose and there are signs: defendant guilty
If the dog is fenced and no signs: defendant guilty
If the dog is lose and there are no signs: GUILTY AS CHARGED
I know why we have laws that defend people doing their jobs even though some people don't want ANYBODY on their property without invitation. However, when an owner of a mean dog has fenced the dog up and posted warning signs, then they've taken responsibility and if that's not enough responsibility, then I don't know what is. He has the right to own a mean dog if he wants to and posting a sign on his cage is fair warning. I do NOT agree with laws that help stupid people get away with stupid things like entering a fenced area that has a sign up that say "BEWARE OF DOG" From what I hear so far, Mayfield is not guilty.
Even if the cage fence is buried deep enough that a vicios dog can't dig out and a 100% secure top that cannot be climbed out of with multiple locks,the owner harboring a vicious dog is still subject to that one moment ,the lack of attention and the dog is on the attack. When it's your wife ,child or family member that's going through years of multiple skin grafts and plastic surgeries from an unprovoked attack you will sing a different tune. I hope it never happens to you. Even after the surgeries,my son will always wear the scars from an dog attack from a careless dog owner that claimed the kids making noise playing in a yard six houses away triggered his dog's attack.His homeowners limits quicky ran out and the courts had to do the rest.
NCAG

Long Beach, CA

#15 Apr 25, 2011
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text> Even if the cage fence is buried deep enough that a vicios dog can't dig out and a 100% secure top that cannot be climbed out of with multiple locks,the owner harboring a vicious dog is still subject to that one moment ,the lack of attention and the dog is on the attack. When it's your wife ,child or family member that's going through years of multiple skin grafts and plastic surgeries from an unprovoked attack you will sing a different tune. I hope it never happens to you. Even after the surgeries,my son will always wear the scars from an dog attack from a careless dog owner that claimed the kids making noise playing in a yard six houses away triggered his dog's attack.His homeowners limits quicky ran out and the courts had to do the rest.
I am very sorry about your Son. Im sure it was a horrific experience for not only him, but his family too. My prayers are with you all. When I read this story, about the carrier and JM dogs attacking them, I started to put things together in my mind, after reading your comments it gave it a new twist. Jeremy was at home, the one place that we as humans and Americans are relaxed and "at home". Im sure Jeremy does not sit and watch out a window every second to see if his dogs are attacking somebody. He might have even been on another part of his property and simply got to the situation as fast as he could. So, I think that the "lack of attention" thing is void because Jeremy was at home. Its very unfortunate things like this happen. Every living being including the dogs is hurt in sititions like this. But one cannot expect a dog owner to have their animal in eyeshot 24/7, thats unrealistic. Im sorry but I still have to be on the Jeremy side of things. Have a good day!
NCAG

Long Beach, CA

#16 Apr 25, 2011
Whoyakidding wrote:
Let's get down to the real question here. Which is, why does Mayfield need 5 attack dogs in his yard? Answer, to protect the meth lab in the garage. The certainly are there to protect all his valuables, he doesn't have any left. Heh Heh
That was cold you jackleg!! Sounds like you know a sumthin, sumthin about Meth labs there pal. Perhaps turning your IP in to the authorities is in order, charging someone with that kind of illegal activity is a serious thing.
Denver Dan Mayfield

Atlanta, GA

#17 Apr 25, 2011
There are some real, real NICE ONES that put their comments on Jeremy's site! L8R. DD.
Joe

Columbus, OH

#18 Apr 25, 2011
I guess he's got those dogs to keep the cops sneaking up on his latest meth lab
ThomasA

Oxford, AL

#19 Apr 25, 2011
NCAG wrote:
<quoted text>I am very sorry about your Son. Im sure it was a horrific experience for not only him, but his family too. My prayers are with you all. When I read this story, about the carrier and JM dogs attacking them, I started to put things together in my mind, after reading your comments it gave it a new twist. Jeremy was at home, the one place that we as humans and Americans are relaxed and "at home". Im sure Jeremy does not sit and watch out a window every second to see if his dogs are attacking somebody. He might have even been on another part of his property and simply got to the situation as fast as he could. So, I think that the "lack of attention" thing is void because Jeremy was at home. Its very unfortunate things like this happen. Every living being including the dogs is hurt in sititions like this. But one cannot expect a dog owner to have their animal in eyeshot 24/7, thats unrealistic. Im sorry but I still have to be on the Jeremy side of things. Have a good day!
Most of these dogs are even tempered and pose no problem but there are those few that are triggered to attack for no understandable reason on or off the owners property as they know no boundries. Dogs dig and climb so having them in a fenced yard is no guarantee of safety. As I have said before,if you have a dog anything like this,check with your homeowners insurance agent to be sure you have your assets covered. There are actually people out there that think they can't be held responsible for anything over their policy limits. Bad thinking!

“RaiderNation of Domination”

Since: May 07

Some West Texas County

#20 Apr 25, 2011
ThomasA wrote:
<quoted text> Even if the cage fence is buried deep enough that a vicios dog can't dig out and a 100% secure top that cannot be climbed out of with multiple locks,the owner harboring a vicious dog is still subject to that one moment ,the lack of attention and the dog is on the attack. When it's your wife ,child or family member that's going through years of multiple skin grafts and plastic surgeries from an unprovoked attack you will sing a different tune. I hope it never happens to you. Even after the surgeries,my son will always wear the scars from an dog attack from a careless dog owner that claimed the kids making noise playing in a yard six houses away triggered his dog's attack.His homeowners limits quicky ran out and the courts had to do the rest.
There's a difference in a dog that got out on its own and a dog that was let out with human assistance. In this case with your son the owner is guilty.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mayfield Motorsports Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Former Sprint Cup star races at Carteret County... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Fart news 2
News It's time to settle Mayfield vs. NASCAR (Aug '09) Jan '15 Brittany 89
News Former NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield aims to br... (Dec '14) Jan '15 Lol 2
News Jeremy Mayfield to share story during live inte... (Jun '14) Jul '14 wth 8
News Former NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield tells his ... (May '14) Jun '14 Snow 12
News Jeremy Mayfield scores legal victory, but could... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Whoyakidding 13
News Has the Jeremy Mayfield Saga Gone on Too Long? (Jan '14) Jan '14 Whoyakidding 2
More from around the web