Teenager Killed by a Police Pistol: Where Is the Mens Rea?

This article is a column; all content and opinions are the author’s personal views and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance.

Meanwhile, a teenager named Bertrand Eko Prasetyo (18) died at the hands of the police. The incident occurred on 1 March 2026, in the jurisdiction of Polrestabes Makassar, South Sulawesi.

Before I have full details of the news, a probability immediately popped into my head. Namely, the police would connect the incident to a brawl, illegal street racing, or a mugging.

And it turned out to be true: BEP was described by the Police Chief as a victim who was shot while the police were dispersing a fight using a toy weapon firing gel pellets.

Indeed it warrants careful scrutiny. However, drawing on the many fatal incidents experienced by young people, I suspect that the police’s thinking processes are heavily tinged by implicit bias.

Every time a group of youths is detected by police, especially at night and they ride motorcycles, police seem to immediately assume these youths are the perpetrators of three types of public order disturbances, or even more serious crimes.

With such assumptions, the police arrive at the scene with a level of readiness akin to facing a high-risk situation that could endanger lives.

That mindset is almost certain to trigger autopilot responses of fight or flight. Because it is unlikely the police would choose flight, the officer’s readiness to confront head-on becomes activated.

On paper, such an encounter between the public and the police would tend to end in serious injury or even death.

The police, of course, must equip themselves with adequate psychological readiness and equipment (for evidentiary purposes) so that they are not subjected to censure for abuse of power or miscarriages of justice.

Meanwhile, in BEP’s death, LBH Makassar strongly suspects that the prerequisites were not met.

Based on that, LBH Makassar regards Iptu N’s actions as not merely a breach of procedure but an unlawful act. Iptu N must be held to account ethically and criminally.

LBH Makassar upholds the single assumption that every police officer acts gradually in accordance with their assessment of the situation. This is referred to as System 2 thinking.

LBH Makassar is clearly wrong if it uses only a single assumption like the above to highlight BEP’s death.