Gothamist: Good Burn: Jury Finds Spin Class Vigilante Not Guilty

angry_pickle

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:25:35 -0500

Just because people piss us off doesn't mean we should beat them up. Words and fists are not equal. But severe emotional/psychological abuse can be as hurtful as physical abuse. Sugarman deserved it. And I hope his employers fire him as well for gross public behavior not becoming of their image.

sonyactivision

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:08:27 -0500

And that's the Criminal, folks. Time for the Civil... Ugh, one more look at those two, and this will become a violent homicide case.

Ronenmars

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:23:51 -0500

Nunyah Bidnit, while you or I would indeed have done what you said- reported the idiot- it does not excuse the the fact that while we may be more logical- you never know if everyone you say such tripe as "make me" will be. What it comes down to is that childish behavior was matched with childish behavior. I'm not saying it is right- but I'm also understanding that this is different than an incident where someone has been attacked simply because they were annoying. Sugarload was being annoying AND goading people on. And honestly? While I can see Carter justifiably getting banned from that gym and forced to undergo anger management courses, I do NOT see this particular instance as deserving a sentence of a year in prison.

rtd2101

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:47:52 -0500

Justice is served bitch

JenChungsBra

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:24:34 -0500

A better response would have been to mock his "You go girl" comments in a high-pitched squeaky voice. Then you could have made the class laugh, you could have avoided being arrested and you might have goaded Sugarman into taking a swing at you at which point you could sue him instead.

Spiritof76

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:52:51 -0500

Reporting Stuporman... er, Sugarman wouldn't have helped. Witnesses already said Carter asked the instructor to shut Sugarman up, but the instructor couldn't or wouldn't help. Other former Equinox members said that that gym is notorious for not addressing members' concerns.

fortyver

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:33:48 -0500

As was posed earlier, both guys are douches. Most of these finance guys are little Bridge and Tunnels guidos turned Upper East Side new moneyed assholes who all need to beat down. God, to have to be in a bar with these losers is insufferable, to be in a gym with them would make me suicidal. Most of my favorite hole in the wall bars have become overrun with these dolts looking to slum it, as they bald and try to hang on to the vestiges of their frat years. NYC is quickly becoming one big Frat House. Thankfully, the coming crash will rid the city of some of these twats.

Nunyah Bidnit

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:21:51 -0500

Ronenmars, goading someone is still not a justification for an aggressive or violent reaction. So what if he was asking for it? That's what people say about women if they dress provocatively and are raped, or children who misbehave and then are beaten. They asked for it, so that justifies the perpetrator's actions? Each person is responsible for their own behavior. If I were there, I would've said "You're not worth the trouble!" and reported the guy for being a nuisance. Getting him barred from the gym would've been a more productive and practical approach. Then they wouldn't have to see him again.

Editrixie

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:14:43 -0500

This is why I work out in the park. Gyms suck.

Ronenmars

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:58:39 -0500

For every single person going "WTF? You just can't go around attacking people!" you need to read the full case again: 1. There was no actual physical contact between the two people. No punches were thrown. That being said, there WAS a form of assault: the bike was picked up and slammed down. HOWEVER: 2. Not only was the assault preceded by Carter asking verbally for him to stop- multiple times- but it was also immediately preceded with Sugaridiot prodding Carter on with "Make Me." When you are verbally goading someone- outright asking them to physically attack you- you simply cannot cry fowl when someone actually takes you up on it. It's something Sugarmoron should have learned in preschool. 3. The very fact that Sugardunce got back up, and without a cry of pain or a wince, proceeded to continue working out for 45 minutes, makes any case he has about immediate "excruciating pain" to his spine completely unbelievable. It is extremely likely, far more likely than the assault being the case, that the injuries were sustained before the incident. I will repeat the most important thing, though: SUGARMAN ACTUALLY TAUNTED THE DEFENDANT WITH "MAKE ME," A RETORT SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGING THE DEFENDANT TO PHYSICALLY MAKE HIM STOP. While such an invitation is normally something to be ignored- one can hardly be held accountable for actually taking someone up on the offer. Don't want to get attacked while being a douchebag? Don't ask people to.

petemac

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:42:31 -0500

WTF? You just can't go around attacking people!

Editrixie

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:40:17 -0500

Why do so many guys think violence is an appropriate response to something that should just be ignored? If someone is disruptive in a class setting, notify the manager of the facility and pay them no mind. Fanning the flames of aggression is just the sort of attention a person like that wants. A long time ago, I was walking outside with my sister, a female friend, and my then-boyfriend. My sister and her friend were a few paces behind me and my boyfriend when a couple of guys heading in the other direction made some "catcall" comments to them. My boyfriend turned around and beat them up. He wound up popping a lens out of his glasses and we had to go back and look for it later. I was so mad at him and when I asked him why he'd done that, he said he couldn't let these guys get away with talking shit to them. In a way, he felt he was defending their honor. I told him it happens to women in the street all the time, and the best thing to do is laugh about it and walk away. Besides, assaulting them didn't accomplish anything (in actuality, their "honor" wasn't sullied by the drunks' comments -- nor was it repaired by the beat-down). The logic that motivated him to respond so violently was flawed. Just because people piss us off doesn't mean we should beat them up. Words and fists are not equal. Many people walk around with a chip on their shoulder - why stoop to their level? It takes two people to fight - it takes one to stop a fight.

plk779

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:32:43 -0500

I think Sugarman might have swung it if he hadn't CONTINUED the class. For me that threw any credibility he had out the window. No one who yells "YOU GO GIRL!!!" is gonna try and cowboy up for the rest of his spin class through a terrible injury. and LOL @ TimSPC

TimSPC

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:18:32 -0500

It would have been great if, at the reading of the jury's decision, Carter yelled "WOOOOO!!!!" and "YOU GO GIRL!!!!"

eyekantspel

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:51:24 -0500

no one deserves to be beaten up for being an obnoxious jerk why not? anyway, Sugarman wasn't beaten up.

meL

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:45:27 -0500

Even though no one deserves to be beaten up for being an obnoxious jerk, Sugarman should've just shut up instead of instigating a hothead like Carter.

eyekantspel

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:32:47 -0500

The NY Post account sounds a little different: Christopher Carter, 44, had admittedly hoisted hedge-funder Stuart Sugarman, 48, off his front wheel, then dropped both Sugarman and the bike to the ground. Sugarman demanded to be taken out of the gym on a stretcher and was quickly diagnosed with a genuine, verifiable acute herniation in a disc in his neck. But jurors yesterday said Sugarman's penchant for exaggeration and outright lies on the witness stand last week did the case in. While Carter "probably" caused the injuries, it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, jurors said. "He was just outrageous," Manhattan Criminal Court juror Marybeth Roman said of Sugarman, the noisiest "spinner" that four class participants testified they had ever heard. "He just wasn't credible. He just wasn't believable," Roman, 20, told reporters. "He was a huge liar." Sugarman had fibbed to them throughout his testimony, jurors complained - about how "normal" his whooping and hollering was, about how high his bike was hiked into the air and about how immediately "excruciating" his pain felt, among other things.

S.D.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:31:00 -0500

A legal definition of Assault. IMO, the jury screwed up. Regardless if Stu Sugarman "had it coming", Assaulting him isn't a solution.

eyekantspel

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:30:09 -0500

According to the Daily News report, it doesn't even sound like Carter punched Sugarman or anything: A Manhattan stockbroker was acquitted Monday of assaulting a hedge fund manager after he created a ruckus with his grunting and hollering in an Equinox health club cycling class. "We felt it was very childish," juror Mary Beth Roman, 20, said of the fight between Christophe Carter and Stuart Sugarman, who said Carter lifted his stationary bike and let it slam down after he refused his demand to be quiet. "Mr. Sugarman manipulated the police, the district attorney, the doctors, but he was unable to manipulate a jury of his peers," Carter's lawyer, Michael Farkas, said. He said it's unclear how the acquittal will affect a civil suit related to the case but a guilty verdict would have hurt his client. Carter said he was "very gratified" by the verdict but it will not result in his returning to any spin classes. "I've decided to grow old gracefully," he said.

eyekantspel

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:21:27 -0500

People like Sugarman are empowered to be the assholes they are because they are rarely given the beatdown they deserve. He brought it on himself by (i) being inconsiderate by disturbing others in the class with his loud noises and (ii) saying "make me" when someone finally asked him to shut the fuck up. Instead of recognizing that he brought this on himself and trying to be a little more considerate, Sugarman now turns around and threatens to file a lawsuit against Carter AND the gym. Someone should give this jerk another beating.

JenChungsBra

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:19:45 -0500

Just like O.J., he may have avoided jail but he's going to owe a lot of money when the civil trial is complete. This Sugarman guy has deep pockets and will rake Carter over the coals.

garbnzgh

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:18:05 -0500

what's interesting to me about this verdict is that there were a lot of witnesses who saw the assault happen. it's possible his injuries were unrelated because the jury clearly didn't believe the guy, but was anyone disputing the actual assault? isn't the act of the assault what the charge is for and not the injuries which may or may not have been connected? even if the guy was annoying as hell, it's still illegal to attack him.

Snoopy

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:17:29 -0500

You people are so annoying, I'm going to kill all of you for what you said on this blog. Now that would be justifiable homicide, wouldn't it? Go ahead make me.

JRod5417

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:13:43 -0500

If the LIRR cell phone vigilante got acquitted, then its only fair that Carter was acquitted as well.

eyekantspel

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:07:05 -0500

i guess this means i can start shoving people out of my way on the trains in the morning. i'll just cite this case as precedent. If the person is being a jerk by deliberately blocking your path, and you ask "can you please move" and he says "make me", by all means, shove away.

yoplay

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:06:23 -0500

The spinning instructor should have been trained to deal with this situation... stepped in when carter vocalized his annoyance and then asked sugarman to ease the f up on his jerk store behavior. yea I don't think annoying behavior warrants physical violence... but I imagine it would feel sooooo gooood. I blame george bush for the shoot first ask questions foreign policy.

edEx

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:06:20 -0500

Sugarman is a perjurer. The court should seek charges against him.

chris

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:00:56 -0500

I think this verdict is fair. Regardless of whether or not the defendant's reaction was warranted, it does seem that the jury ruled based on precedence. I'm sure you're all familiar with 'No Harm No Foul.'

eyekantspel

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:58:47 -0500

I'm very happy with this verdict. I suppose S.D. is right, technically, this could be considered an assault, but sometimes the world is a better place when jerks like Sugarman are given the beating they deserve (and in his case, asked for).

MFer

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:56:09 -0500

Sometimes violence is justified. This is one case.

zodak

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:54:31 -0500

i guess this means i can start shoving people out of my way on the trains in the morning. i'll just cite this case as precedent.

jessecal

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:53:59 -0500

What CARTER should have done is talk to the other 'spinners' and when the next session was about to begin- they should have all gotten up and left the spinning room en mass... leaving loudmouth Sugarman to be the only one in the class... and the instructor/leader should have left as well! Giving new literal meaning to his expresson: 'you go girl!'

Armchair_warrior

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:53:14 -0500

both guys seems like douche bags LOL.

S.D.

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:52:58 -0500

So, he assaults someone and gets off since the victim is perceived as an Jerk? Nice.

dkim2015

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:44:33 -0500

for your health!

amsci

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:36:28 -0500

The system works.

matty

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:36:21 -0500

The sweet, sweet smell of justice...smells like maple syrup...sorta...does anyone else smell that?