what a scumbag! From your gallery?

Yeah I got the print back..

Has a post been removed ? Good on you PE, a top gentleman who puts art out there for people to enjoy and NOT to be robbed from !

Thought I read another post !!! Top stuff Invaded thought I was losing the plot ! Didn't like the post I read too

Glad you got your print back. On the Banksy side, it's interesting that when old, rich, white guys steal street art, everyone grumbles but ultimately no one does anything. But when a not so wealthy black guy steals street art, he's arrested and convicted of attempting to convert criminal property.

You have a point but I think in most cases the owner of the property was informed & paid… except in New Orleans….They should hog tie those guys!

Well done you for being so quick footed, babies do slow you down!

I once chased and caught someone who'd pickpocket my wife's purse… the would be thief gave it up very quickly, but on reflection it could have got quite nasty!

I'm glad in both these cases the situation didn't spiral out of control...!

Class, PE…

awesome man!

Yeah, but you'd have to ask them first as you couldn't simply remove said wall and 'restore' it without their permission, otherwise, people would be taking a fancy to all sorts of things and 'removing' them then 'restoring' what they'd taken.  So, surely, as nothing can be done to that wall without their permission, for all intents and purposes the owners of the wall are in control of and 'own' the art that appears on it?

Not picking a fight, randomname… but that's how I'd see it... 

Totally agree with Amboguy as to why the race was played in the first place. Cracking piece though Charley !!!

Are legal system is bent and corrupt because of rich and power hungry people no doubt.
Mr Lawrence here is simply being made an example of because of the value he tried to sell this stolen piece for. If this was on public property this wouldn't of happened because clearly you couldn't class this as handling stolen goods unless there was someone to of stolen it from.
He's clearly just a thief and a stupid one at that, this is nothing to do with skin colour or class.

He should have been charged with a crime. He even should have been charged with stealing something valuable. But what he stole of value, he stole from the public, not a private company.

In the same vein, rich gallery owners should probably be charged with possession of stolen property when they remove a piece of street art that was intended for the public. 

There's a movement towards treating street art as part of our cultural heritage to prevent individuals from claiming it as their own. There's a moral and legal argument to be made there. 

What's also interesting is that the idea of graffiti holding intrinsic value is relatively new. In the eyes of the law, it's considered vandalism. Which is why insurance companies won't pay on a claim if you report vandalism of your vandalism. And it's why raggers aren't arrested and prosecuted for anything other than simple vandalism. So it seems odd that in this one particular case, he was prosecuted based on the value of the art.

Lower income individuals face higher prosecution rates and receive harsher penalties than wealthier individuals when charged with the same crime. Likewise, racial minorities are prosecuted more often and receive harsher sentences when charged with the same crime. In this case, he was treated differently than every other case I've seen of street art theft or vandalism. That might be coincidental. Or it might not.