After the article describes Officer Wedding going to the window with his .45 and scaring off the intruder, it goes on to paraphrase him as giving this crime-deterring advice:
"Wedding says his case in still an on-going investigation. He recommends a few tips to prevent home invasion such as good lighting, a dog, locking your doors and windows, neighborhood watch groups, security lighting, lights on timers, and an*alarm system."
Is this creative editing on the part of an anti-home-defense journalist, or a double standard? It doesn't mention a home owner legally arming and defending him/herself. The city LEO in my apartment complex is a staunch supporter of a citizen's right to self defense, but is he the rule or the exception? I'm relatively new to the area so I don't know prevailing viewpoints in general.
I don't see a problem with what Wedding said about preventing crime. His tips were given to warn off a burglar. He didn't come across as anti-gun. I believe most of the POs in Tiny Town are pro carry for the peasants.
"Wedding says his case in still an on-going investigation. He recommends a few tips to prevent home invasion such as good lighting, a dog, locking your doors and windows, neighborhood watch groups, security lighting, lights on timers, and an alarm system and a .45."