Kompolnas collects evidence in Makassar teen shooting case

Makassar (ANTARA) - The National Police Commission (Kompolnas) responded swiftly by gathering a number of pieces of evidence in the case of the shooting of an 18-year-old man named Bertrand Eka Prasteyo, allegedly caused unintentionally by police officer Iptu N while he was attempting to disperse a melee involving toy firearms on Jalan Toddopuli Raya, Panakukang District, on Sunday 1 March 2026.

“We came specifically to directly verify what happened in the Panakkukang incident. First, we met with the family, checked the scene of the incident, assessed CCTV positions and so on, and cross-checked them against the CCTV available,” said Kompolnas Commissioner Choirul Anam, accompanied by Gufron Mabruri at the South Sulawesi Regional Police Headquarters (Mapolda Sulsel), Jalan Perintis Kemerdekaan, Makassar, on Thursday.

In addition to collecting statements and on-site evidence and delving into information from the public about what actually happened, the Kompolnas team also met with the suspect (Iptu N), who is now charged as a suspect, including the doctor who performed the autopsy on the victim.

Next, together with Makassar City Police Chief (Kombes Pol) Arya Perdana, the Ditreskrimum, and the Professional Security and Public Order (Propam) division of Polda Sulsel, they checked the extent of how developments have been handled and what had been done in terms of ethics enforcement and criminal action against the person concerned.

“Firstly, we commend the swift action by the regional police and Polrestabes in taking action. It has also been announced that his status has been upgraded to suspect. Secondly, no less important, we wish to convey what exactly happened in Panakkukang,” he said.

From the analysis of CCTV footage secured at the time of the incident, Choirul said, together with public witness statements at the scene, as well as checking other evidence and different viewpoints, it becomes much clearer. Because we checked the scene and its surroundings directly, there was indeed activity of youths shooting toys.

Not only that, the CCTV observed shows only shooting and firing; the video images are clear. Regarding the position of how the shooting occurred, he explained, there was indeed a warning shot, a second shot, as seen in the video. Because the video of the incident cannot be altered.

“We cross-check with various parties; the position of the hands and the body determine whether it was intentional or unintentional. Let this be studied further; it is clear in the video. This is crucial as part of the legal process there. With the CCTV video widely distributed, the incident is clear and easy to see,” he told reporters.

Meanwhile, in the clearer video, the position of Iptu N does not appear to be aiming at a particular target, but rather protecting the person in the footage. The suspect also attempted to take the victim to hospital for treatment.

“In other words, if aiming looks like this (to illustrate), it would indeed have targeted a specific subject, which is not evident. Whether this position was deliberate or accidental remains; the video serves as the primary evidence showing the position of the hands and the weapon,” he said.

“If you look at it closely, there is indeed no direct aiming position. But more detail will be explored later with a scientific approach to strengthen it. The video is very important. Yet, in this position, nothing appears to be directed (a firearm); if it had been directed directly, the sequence of events would not unfold like this,” he added.