State of Nevada allows for any person to make an arrest of a suspected criminal.
I believe you will find that all states except North Carolina provide for citizen's arrests under at least some circumstances.
There are two problems: (1) you have to know what you are doing, and how, to avoid the risk of criminal prosecution, and (2) (probably much more serious) your civil liability may exceed your net worth by several fold.
When sworn officers make an arrest, they have approved procedures and rules of engagement to help ensure not only that their actions are proper but also that the evidence protects them to the greatest extent practical from charges of wrong-doing--and
they are trained. Even so, a perp and his lawyer may allege that unlawful force was used.
Both the cost of the defense (which could be stratospherical) and the cost of any out-of-court settlement or civil judgment (either of which could be astronomical) are borne by the taxpayers.
Not so for the citizen.
Twist his arm to hold him, and listen to the experts whose fees you will probably end up paying describe afterward how said action on your part has impaired his earnings ability, prevented his spouse from enjoying consortium, etc.
Hold him and discover that he is having a seizure and see what develops.
Attorneys I know strongly advise against trying a citizens arrest. I won't even think about it.
Further, before the law here was changed to shield citizens from civil liability stemming from a legally justifiable use of deadly force, attorneys advised that while one who had lawfully defended himself against forcible home invasion, for example, might easily avoid criminal sanctions (his requirement is to show reasonable doubt), the invader's family might nonetheless become wealthy at the citizen's expense (their burden is a preponderance of the evidence).
It is said that the law was amended because that had been happening. Helps in a self defense case. Not when you are detaining someone.
I'm sure that many will think the laws are unreasonable--that they favor the "BG" over the "law abiding citizen".
But we found a long, long time ago that we have to have laws to prevent one person from violently attacking another in a dispute over property, for example, to keep gangs from running our neighborhoods, to keep the crooked sheriff and his co-conspirators from extorting money from the ranchers, and to keep bad policemen from doing bad things to the "good guys." That's why each and every one of us is guaranteed due process. That's why we have police departments, prosecutors, courts, and attorneys, both civil and criminal. That's why we have contracts, deeds of title, etc., not to mention laws about theft, robbery, rape, murder, counterfeiting---and justifiable homicide.
Sorry for the rant, but a lot of people seem to believe that if they have a gun,
they are always the "GGs" and that everyone else is a "BG," and that any constraints on their behavior are unreasonable.
State of Nevada also allows for defense of ones property, which I'm sure plays along with the "reasonable amount of force".
Do you know of anywhere in the country in which that is not true?