The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Spinning Out of Control

42 Comments

June 19, 2008 by Kathy McManus

 Silence may be golden, but its recent pursuit in a New York City gym has set off a loud debate about entitlement and personal responsibility.

It started in a spin class, when a 49-year-old Wall Street investment partner named Stuart Sugarman began yelling and grunting comments like "You go, girl!" and "Good burn!" as he cycled.

Another participant in the class--45-year-old stockbroker Christopher Carter--was offended by the loud outbursts. He twice asked gym instructors to silence Mr. Sugarman, who continued to shout his self-encouragements.

Mr. Carter exchanged words with Mr. Sugarman, whose retort, "Make me" struck Mr. Carter as a call to arms—and biceps, triceps, pectorals, and deltoids. He grabbed Mr. Sugarman’s handlebars, tipped the bike backwards, and sent the grunter into a wall.

Mr. Sugarman was hospitalized for two weeks with neck and back pain. Mr. Carter was charged with assault.

But while the injured Mr. Sugarman awaited his day in court, the court of public opinion issued a surprising verdict in favor of Mr. Carter. "Don’t know Chris Carter, but can we give him a medal?" was typical of the comments left on a blog and a newspaper website.

Another backer of the alleged assault-er over the assault-ee sized up the situation as "a small part of a much larger issue," explaining his theory in a comment to _The New York Times_: "Many Americans have an increasing sense of entitlement. That is, what they want to do is more important than anyone else."

A Times columnist picked up on the "outsize sense of entitlement," calling it a phenomenon that helps explain "ballpark loudmouths" who don’t care who their drunken swearing offends, people who answer their cellphones in movie theaters, and "dog walkers who block sidewalks with their long-stretched leashes."

Did a jury agree? Mr. Carter was found not guilty of assault after jurors expressed reasonable doubt that he had caused Mr. Sugarman’s neck and back trouble. One juror made a point of commenting on Mr. Sugarman’s gym etiquette: "I was like, why must he be obnoxious and disrespectful to the others?"

Tell us what you think: Was justice served? What’s the responsible way to deal with annoying behavior at the gym, the ballpark, the movie theater, or any other public place?

42 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• June 19, 2008 by mary flanders

  I don't believe so. I strongly believe that no matter how obnoxious one may be it does not justify becoming physical with someone. If the people in charge could not handle the situation then the police should have been called. We may not like someone elses behavior but that does not mean we can force our wants or needs on them. My only other thought?? Was there testimony in the trial from medical experts that showed his injuries could not have happened as a result of being thrown off the bike? How could Mr. Carter be innocent??? He caused Mr. Sugarman to fall off the bike. Mr Sugarman was being punished for being obnoxious.

  Reply

• June 19, 2008 by Jessi Chelle

  I do not think justice was necessarily served. Mr. Carter acted violently, and as Mary Flanders said [above], I don't see how he can possibly be innocent of causing Mr. Sugarman's injuries. The issue of entitlement is rather intriguing. Are we truly entitled to others complying with our wishes in public places? Is it responsible to be disruptive--even if we do have the right to answer our cell phones in movie theaters? Is it responsible to rudely refuse to comply with someone else's request? Is it responsible to react in anger/irritation/annoyance? It seems both men acted irresponsibly. The responsible way to deal with annoying behavoir in public places would be to respectfully ask that the behavoir be modified--and if it is not, to notify the proper authorities or just suck it up and deal with it. How selfish are the American people?

  Reply

  • June 24, 2008 by Judith A. Eisner

    I think Mr. Carter should have walked away. No matter how inspired he was to strike Mr. Sugarman, that's not the way to go. Sugarman was acting like a jerk, and Carter should have recognized this and left it alone. However, the staff at the gym should have asked Mr. Sugarman to be more considerate of his surroundings and place.

    Reply

• June 26, 2008 by judith cooperman

  Rude, discourteous and socially disruptive behavior is often ignored and passively accepted because people fear confrontation and the possibility that violence may ensue. As a martial arts instructor, I teach my students to be socially responsible without being passive, yet if challenged, to walk away unless they must protect life or property. Carter's motives appear good until he lost self-control, and thus his behavior was as wrong as Sugarman’s tasteless, loud and obnoxious comments.

  Reply

• July 15, 2008 by nac

  It is unfortunate that the case devolved into a school yard brawl. Why weren't the instructors or gym owners more involved? After several complaints about the unappreciated comments, Mr. Carter felt compelled to take matters into his own hands. I would hate to think that such behavior is necessary at other gyms across the country.

  Reply

• December 24, 2008 by B

  I think Mr. Sugarman got just what he was asking for. If someone baits an individual, it's just like framing him for a crime. The baiter is operating on the premise that the baitee will hang himself with his own actions. And in the case of Sugarman v. Carter, no matter what Mr. Carter decided to do, he would have come out injured. If he backed down, he would have lost face and Sugarman would have learned that he truly can do whatever he wants and probably would have become more obnoxious in the future, yet by reacting, Carter found himself in legal trouble. If we continue to live by the advice we sadly give our children "Use your words, not your fists," we continue to encourage the kind of entitled behavior Mr. Sugarman exhibited. It's getting worse and worse. I can't even enjoy a movie in the theater anymore, and even if I ask nicely for the rude behavior to stop, I'm treated like I'm the one acting entitled. The truth is, walking away doesn't solve problems; it enables them. Passive resistance has its place, but putting up with the behavior of someone like Sugarman hurts everyone. Shame on the gym employees for not using their authority to curb his behavior. I think they left Mr. Carter with no choice. Everyone knows that in some situations, a punch in the nose is the only thing that works. In some cases, it's the only way you'll get any respect.

  Reply

• December 25, 2008 by

  Too many people feel they can get away with saying anything they want and not have to suffer consequences. So they speak their minds believing no one can touch them without being sued. I believe everyone has the freedom of speech, but at the same time, other people around that person have the right to enjoy not being harassed by rude comments. Mr. Carter's reaction may not be appropriate, but if people were allowed to respond the way he did, I'm positive we would have less people speaking their minds so rudely in front of ladies and children... And once they begin curbing their language, there would be less of a reason for reactions such as Mr. Carter's.

  Reply

• December 27, 2008 by

  I guess it is a shame that there even HAS to be a moderator making sure people ask responsibly. Indeed, too many do not even know what 'responsibility' is. One cannot even seek refuge from loud, obnoxious behavior in libraries as they are no longer the quiet, peaceful venue they once were. To post on this forum is, in a way, self-defeating because we all know that the true offenders would never bother with this 'triviality' spoken here. I wish that I knew the solution but I am too busy dodging bicycles on the sidewalks of Philadelphia (where they are not supposed to be).

  Reply

• December 27, 2008 by

  The obnoxious one gave the other one his consent to physically stop his obnoxious behavior when he said, in public, "Make me".

  Reply

• December 27, 2008 by

  If I was a man in a mens gym and heard a male grunting "you go girl", I'd laugh hysterically and it woudl make my workout better by burning more calories! How can a man can be offended by this? Was he a homosexual? There are not enough detials to this article....this article just makes me want to go to the gym with a camera and start grunting!

  Reply

• December 28, 2008 by

  Mr. Sugarman may certainly have been engaging in selfish and obnoxious behavior, but I'm astounded how we can point fingers at one but ignore that identical sense of self-entitlement that lets Mr. Carter think he is judge, jury and executioner and can take matters into his own hands. The bottom line: Mr. Sugarman should be banned from the gym, and Mr. Carter should be banned from ANY gym until he serves time for criminal assault against the morbidly obese Sugarman. Both of these individuals are childishly selfish menaces and none of us needs to encounter either of them when we come to innocently workout.

  Reply

• December 28, 2008 by

  Two wrongs do not make it right. Two immature people in the same room were elements for a perfect storm, add into the mix an irresponsible trainer and here's what you get...a disaster. Those who wrote comments supporting the assault made on the loud mouth, reveal that they are also lacking wisdom and are of the same immature mentality. (Adolescent.) Violence begets violence and serves no purpose unless your life and/or property are threatened. My concern is with the staff. It is common knowledge of health club owners and staff personnel (fitness trainers) that when matters like this take place, and they will wherever people congregate, that those in positions of authority respond as professionals. The person facilitating this class dropped the ball and they should be held accountable. A good instructor or trainer has the ability to sight and stop this nonsense before it becomes full blown. It never should have progressed to this level. If I owned this club, I'd fire the fitness trainer. Maybe I sound harsh, but that's the way I operate. It set's the tone. I'd also terminate the memberships of the two "manboys." End of story. The notion that some people may have a sense of "self-entitlement" or not, is totally irrelevant. People are people. It is how we choose to respond to them that is the real issue at hand.

  Reply

  • February 10, 2009 by B

    In response to those who felt that Sugarman and Carter were both irresponsible, but also felt that Carter should have made the choice to leave it up to the gym staff to handle the situation or just walk away, I was curious to know what you think being responsible means? To me, it means acting independently to provide for oneself or to meet an obligation. I think Carter did act responsibly. When the gym staff failed to act, he stepped up. He took care of his own needs and ultimately his actions benefited everyone else in the spin class. It probably wasn't pretty to witness, but there was certainly a long term gain and lessons learned. I think it's irresponsible NOT to act when another person pushes limits and goes unchecked. I can see relying on the police and other formal "authority figures" for more serious issues, but for rude behavior, I think it's up to us to keep each other in check. Children curb each other all the time as do puppies in litters and it works better than anything else. Peer pressure is the best medicine for someone "acting dumb."

    Reply

• December 30, 2008 by

  I agree with the previous comment. The management should have handled this problem. In retrospect -- fire the trainer and ban the two guys who were both in the wrong. I'll be surprised if Sugarman doesn't sue the health club.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.