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.
As I understood it, law officers were on the scene immediately when they were called in. They saw the scenario and didn't arrest either of the border-patrol members. The complaint arose later, with an odor of barratry around it, and the local sheriff's office arrested the two individuals on representations made to the sheriff later.
1. Arizona law sucks, if it requires us to know when a felony has been committed, rather than a class "A" misdemeanor, before someone can step in and stop someone else from doing wrong, without being arrested himself. That's just plain wrong -- that's treading on the people's right to raise the ancient Anglo-Saxon hue and cry and arrest midemeanants.
The whole idea of intermediation of the law in medieval times was to interrupt the cycle of vendetta and stop people's killing one another. Now it's being used to enforce an Establishment politics of quietism and personal anomie.
2. Crashing the borders of the United States isn't a felony? You mean there is such a thing as a federal misdemeanor ?