Citizen's Arrest on Non-Citizens

Rancher not guilty in detaining illegal immigrants, but still pays $78,000.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/frontpage/110338.php

I was in Michigan State Law Enforcement for 5 years and during that time I witnessed some pretty bizarre cases whose outcome were based on the " interpretation" of the " law". Justice, righteousness, fairness, and consideraton of the victim played little if any part in the decisions which were often favorable towards the perpetrator of the crime and in my opinion failed the victims.
What I observed were the actions of an under-educated, over-worked system that played party to politics and expediency. I expect that is the same pretty much everywhere in the U.S. especially where the foreign element of Mexican politics is such a dominating force.
Instead of doing what is "right", decisions are made for political expediency and favor, especially when the trial is jury-based and is made up of the illusion of one's peers. That Barnett did not receive a jury of his rancher peers, I am sure of or the outcome would have been much more in his favor.
In my interpretation regarding the charges of assault, since I am not priviledged to the case manuscript, I can not make a decision on it. What I can say is that if there was no threat of life against Barnetts' family, employees, or guests and no felony was committed in his presence (he would have to show burden of proof that the trespassers were illegally here in this country if he was to use immigration as his felon) and he did not give the trespassers an opportunity to leave his property upon his request, he may certainly have demonstrated the act of assault against their persons by holding them at gunpoint. It is a very thin defense that one assumes illegal immigration by simplicity of race or presence at hand and there lies the rub. Since the U.S. federal government treats the illegal immigration felony so lightly as to allow five consecutive acts of illegal immigration before they prosecute the criminal, how can one expect to be vindicated for treating a suspected illegal immigrant as a felony in one's presence? The courts have historically shown legal precedence in not regarding mere illegal immigration as a crime warranting prosecution. Therefore legal precedence would not be in favor of Barnett using a means of lethal force in detaining mere trespassers even if they were in fact illegal immigrants.
A man's home is his castle until the lawyers get involved, then it is up to the best talker, best liar, and hopefully the best interpreter (judge or jury) to make the right decision. But remember that the world is full of stupid people and many of them preside over our rights and freedoms.

- Rogue