We're talking about one incident in which two guys from one border-watch group were accused after the fact of having waved guns around and threatened people, which a county mountie explained to a newspaperman was, in the mountie's opinion, a violation of Arizona law. Not considering for the moment whether the accusations were made in good faith, or trumped up afterward on the solicitation of one of the Leftist border groups.
OK, let's think about this.
Two guys jump out of a bush and confront a group of Mexican illegals. They can't know in advance whether they're illegal immigrants accompanying a coyote or drug mules accompanied by CAR-15-toting cocaine cowboys. Leaving aside the question of how smart this is, does this constitute "assault" under Arizona law? If so, is there any way to perform a citizen's arrest in Arizona without committing a criminal assault? Is there any way to perform a citizen's arrest in Arizona while strapped (for snakes, or in self-defense against criminals, on property you were invited to be standing on, or own, on which the other people were trespassing and breaking the laws of the United States) without committing an armed assault? What if the answer is no? Where does that leave people who confront trespassers on their own property -- are they assailants, with or without deadly weapons, if they so much as show themselves?
In Texas, going onto someone else's property or onto public lands while carrying a pistol without benefit of a concealed-carry license is "carrying for the purpose of going armed" and is a Class "A" misdemeanor. If you are on your own property, or if you are a designated agent (invitee?) of a property owner, you can carry openly without a license. I don't know what Arizona law is; it varies from state to state, but concealed-carry license-holders enjoy reciprocity in some jurisdictions. Someone from Arizona may want to shed some light on their state laws.
But does a person otherwise legally carrying weapons in Arizona really commit assault with a deadly weapon, or "brandishing", if he attempts to make a citizen's arrest of people clearly breaking the law? Does Arizona law require people legally carrying weapons to allow armed trespassers to shoot them, if they are not to become lawbreakers themselves by reason of "brandishing"? Does carrying a weapon at low ready constitute "brandishing"? Does carrying a weapon unslung or unholstered constitute "brandishing"? Does the law require me to allow the other person to shoot at me first, before I unholster or unsling my piece, even if the other person clearly is breaking the law from the moment I see him? Does Arizona law require me to be a passive observer of my own murder, lest I "brandish" a weapon or "assault" someone? Does Arizona law require me to stay at home with a glass of warm milk when other people break the law, lest I "brandish" or "assault"? How far does Arizona go with this reasoning, and can anyone who is required by law to "leave it to Beaver" when invading foreign nationals break the law on his property be said to be a free person?
I would venture that the strong majority of crimes are reported that way. I agree there could be political underpinnings here - however, the sheriff of the county in question has generally been supportive of the border groups in the past.
Leaving aside the question of how smart this is, does this constitute "assault" under Arizona law? If so, is there any way to perform a citizen's arrest in Arizona without committing a criminal assault?
In this case, it's not the method, it is the circumstance. Arizona law requires that you witness a probable felony in progress (except for midemeanor riot, which doesn't apply here) to perform a citizens arrest, and at that point you could brandish a weapon against someone to perform the arrest. However, being an illegal is not, in most cases, a felony arrest, so spotting an illegal alien does not rise to the level of probable felony, hence a citizens arrest is not warranted under Arizona law and any attempt at citizens arrest can be interpreted as assault, just as if someone pulled a gun on you while you were walking down the street.
How far does Arizona go with this reasoning, and can anyone who is required by law to "leave it to Beaver" when invading foreign nationals break the law on his property be said to be a free person?
That's generally where the laws regarding trespass have gone in this country, and that is the case whether the perp is an illegal or a citizen. You can ask them to leave immediately, and if they refuse they have upped the ante. When ABP witnesses illegals breaking into a structure and removing property, they arrest them at that point, as the offense has just risen to the threshhold of probable felony. I personally would be in favor of allowing citizen apprehension of illegals along the immediate border - but once you get inland more than 5-10 miles, there are legal issues determining who is an illegal or not. But that's not the law now, and these groups, knowing that a bunch of libs are gunning for them politically, need to be really careful not to step over the line as the law is currently written.