Police records describe a planned meeting, a confrontation at a North Memphis property and separate alleged roles for two arrested defendants.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A dispute over money connected to a vehicle set the stage for an alleged confrontation in North Memphis where a man was forced to undress, shot through the thigh, beaten and robbed, according to accounts the victim gave investigators.
The disagreement is one of the clearest reported explanations for why the victim was taken to a property near Pope Street and Omar Robinson Street on Sept. 23, but the available records leave the underlying transaction uncertain. Police accounts cited by news organizations say another man arrived after the victim reached the property and demanded money related to a vehicle. Two people, Bailey Jobin, 23, and Joseph Polk, 20, were arrested in the investigation. Both were reported as facing a serious robbery charge, while Polk also faced firearm, stolen-vehicle, evading-arrest and license-related allegations. Neither defendant has been found guilty based on the material reviewed.
The accounts do not provide a contract, sales record or other documentation showing exactly what the vehicle disagreement involved. Law&Crime reported from an affidavit that the victim owed money to the man who later arrived at Pope Street. WREG’s account, based on the victim’s statements to police, described the confrontation as involving money the other man had given the victim for a vehicle purchase. Those descriptions are close enough to establish that a vehicle-related financial dispute was alleged, but they are not identical. The publicly available information does not resolve who originally paid whom, how much money was disputed or whether a vehicle had actually changed hands.
What police allege happened before that confrontation is more specific. Investigators said the victim entered a vehicle occupied by Jobin, Polk and another man. Law&Crime reported that the affidavit accused Jobin of helping arrange the trip and persuading the victim to ride with her. She was said to have sat beside him in the back seat. Polk and another man were in front, according to that account. WMC reported that the victim knew Polk by the name “Jay Pointer.” Police have not publicly said, in the reports reviewed, what explanation the group gave the victim for where they were going.
The victim’s account places Jobin’s alleged conduct at the beginning of the sequence rather than at the point when the physical violence occurred. Investigators described her as facilitating the trip to Pope Street. The reports do not accuse her of shooting the victim, striking him or personally taking his cellphone. That does not resolve the robbery charge filed against her, but it is an important factual distinction from the allegations against Polk. The case described by police is one in which several people allegedly played different roles, some identified and others still unnamed in the initial reporting.
At the property, a man the victim knew only by the nickname “One-legged Jay” arrived and demanded money, according to local reports. The available accounts do not provide his legal name. Police said the victim was pulled from the vehicle as the confrontation unfolded. He was then made to remove his clothes and was directed toward the backyard. The reports do not explain why the group allegedly wanted him moved behind the property, and no motive beyond the financial dispute has been publicly established. Any explanation of what might have happened there would go beyond the evidence described by investigators.
The victim refused to go into the backyard, according to the police account. He told the group, “You’re going to have to kill me here.” Investigators allege Polk responded by drawing a handgun and shooting him through the right thigh. Police records cited by WMC say two other men then punched the victim in the head, knocking out several teeth. The reports do not identify those two men or say whether one of them was the person associated with the money dispute. They also do not indicate that Jobin participated in the beating.
Police said the victim’s cellphone was taken during the encounter. No public report reviewed says whether investigators later recovered it or whether other property was taken. The reports also do not indicate that the attackers obtained the disputed money at the center of the confrontation. That absence is notable because the alleged debt or transaction may explain why the meeting occurred, while the cellphone is the specific item publicly identified as having been taken during the violence. Authorities have not disclosed a fuller inventory of property allegedly lost.
The victim reached a hospital and was interviewed by Memphis police. WMC reported that investigators spoke with him at Baptist East Hospital and that he identified people he said were responsible. The hospital interview became a key source for the sequence later described in police records: who was in the vehicle, who allegedly lured him to the location, who he believed shot him and what happened after the confrontation began. Authorities did not release a subsequent medical update in the reports reviewed, leaving the victim’s longer-term condition unknown.
Investigators then turned their attention to Polk. WMC reported that police developed him as the suspected shooter and located a black 2013 BMW associated with a prior stolen-vehicle report. Officers saw the vehicle backed into a parking lot on Jackson Avenue and attempted a traffic stop, but the driver allegedly failed to stop and continued on Chelsea Avenue. The report did not tie the BMW itself to the Pope Street transportation described by the victim, and the available information should not be read as establishing that it was the same vehicle used to take him to the property.
Police later received a Flock camera alert placing the BMW near Watkins Street and Jackson Avenue, according to WMC. By the time officers arrived, the car was parked and unoccupied. They contacted a man near it and identified him as Polk. He was taken to police headquarters. WMC reported that he did not give investigators a statement because he said he was heavily under the influence of multiple intoxicants and was considered unable to provide one at that time. There is no public account in the sources reviewed of what Polk may have told investigators later.
The charges reflected the different strands of the investigation. WMC said Jobin and Polk were charged with especially aggravated robbery. Law&Crime, citing Shelby County court records, referred to aggravated robbery instead. WMC additionally reported that Polk was charged with employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, being a felon in possession of a firearm, theft of a motor vehicle valued between $2,500 and $10,000, evading arrest and driving without a valid license. The publicly reviewed reports do not explain the difference in wording on the robbery charge, so it should not be silently reconciled.
The other people described in the victim’s account remained a major unresolved part of the early investigation. WREG reported that police were searching for several additional people, including the man identified by the nickname associated with the vehicle dispute. Later coverage confirmed Jobin’s and Polk’s arrests but did not identify the other alleged participants as charged defendants. The reporting also does not say whether investigators determined that the man who demanded money had arranged the meeting himself or whether he arrived after others had already brought the victim to the property.
Several evidentiary questions also remained unanswered in the material made public. The reports do not describe recovery of the handgun, forensic testing from the property, neighborhood surveillance video or electronic communications among the people involved. They do not say whether the disputed vehicle transaction produced messages, receipts or other records that investigators obtained. Those unknowns are important because the police narrative describes a coordinated encounter, but the publicly available evidence supporting coordination consists primarily of the victim’s account and investigators’ allegation that Jobin helped bring him to the location.
Early reports placed Jobin and Polk on court calendars shortly after their arrests, with Law&Crime later reporting another appearance scheduled for the following Monday. The sources reviewed did not provide a subsequent resolution of the cases or an update on the unidentified people mentioned in the police account. No later public report located for this article changed the central status of the allegations: two defendants had been arrested, other roles remained unclear and the underlying vehicle-money dispute had not been fully explained.
Author note: Last updated November 9, 2026.