Except the part where she destroyed the landscaping that the dealership paid to put in and maintain. That the dealership had to take the time to schedule and pay for a landscaping company to remove the "guerilla" shrubbery, replace the displaced PH balanced groundsoil and probably put down new groundcover (cedar bark, would be my guess) and likely pay for fertilizer to boot. Not to mention labor. TWICE! And after that, the dealer removed it because the were worried about FURTHER vandalism, which I'm sure she would have kept on doing.

And why would this company leave her vandalism in? Not only would it validate her feelings about defacing private property, but it would encourage her to continue the behavior. Benz isn't a 'cool' and 'caring' company. They don't sell Peace, they sell cars. CARS!

All so this stupid woman could make her "statement"...which is what exactly? Oh that's right, she didn't make one. She made about as much statement as some frathouse would have made by turning the benz symbol into a giant shrubbery wang.

I'm sure if Sid does something "inspiring", it will be legal, and not damaging to anyone else's property.

Like I said, if this chick needs to "prove a point", she can put up all the peace symbols she wants on her own property. If she can't, well, she can always ask someone who owns property for permission first.

My fingers are crossed.

I am going to feature this on my art blog tomorrow. Thanks for the post.

She didn't really destroy anything, she added something that could be removed.
Any less uptight company would leave it there and use it to show how "cool" and caring company they are.

What she was doing was vandalism, plain and simple. She was free to plant whatever she wanted on her own property, but instead, she needed to vandalize someone else's property. The dealership had to pay someone to repair their landscaping (twice). What right did this woman have to touch their property?