Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable that if you know someone stole something, you can stop them. Under the prerequisite conditions section, it is stated that:

The shopkeeper has reasonable grounds to suspect the particular person detained is shoplifting.

Wouldn’t that mean that someone who has done nothing suspicious other than refusing the check would not be giving anyone reasonable grounds to stop them? Or does just refusing count as reasonable grounds and make the check effectively legally mandatory?

someone who can is waiting(and the salarymen can, shopkeeper’s privilege apparently in the US)

Can you elaborate on this? I’ve never heard of it.

Captchas are actually a great tool for reducing spam and botting. Depending on the platform, they can directly benefit you. Captchas and manual approval for Lemmy account signups are directly responsible for the lack of spambots on this platform. The problem is that captchas got co-opted to force people to give companies free AI training data.