Police say a dispute involving money and a vehicle escalated into a shooting, beating and robbery at a North Memphis property.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Two people were charged after a man told Memphis police he was taken to a North Memphis property, confronted over money connected to a vehicle, shot through the thigh and beaten before his cellphone was taken, according to police records and local reports.

Bailey Jobin, 23, and Joseph Polk, 20, were arrested after the Sept. 23 encounter near Pope Street and Omar Robinson Street. Investigators allege Jobin helped get the victim into a vehicle and Polk later shot him. Local station WMC, citing Memphis Police Department records, reported both were charged with especially aggravated robbery, while Law&Crime described Shelby County court records as listing aggravated robbery. Polk also faced several other charges, including employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, being a felon in possession of a firearm and theft of property valued between $2,500 and $10,000. The allegations have not been proven in court.

The encounter began before the group reached Pope Street. According to the accounts given to police, the victim was picked up by Jobin, Polk and another man. Law&Crime reported that an affidavit accused Jobin of helping arrange the encounter by persuading the victim to ride with her. She and the victim were said to have been in the back seat while two men rode in the front. WMC reported that the victim knew Polk by the name “Jay Pointer.” Nothing in the publicly available reports establishes that the victim knew beforehand that a confrontation was expected at the destination.

After the vehicle reached the area near Pope Street and Omar Robinson Street, another man arrived and confronted the victim, according to police accounts. Reports identified that man only by a nickname, “One-legged Jay.” Police said the dispute involved money and an earlier vehicle transaction. The available reports differ slightly in how they describe the money: Law&Crime said the victim reportedly owed money concerning a vehicle, while WREG reported that the victim said the man demanded money connected to a vehicle purchase. Neither account provides a complete record of the underlying transaction, and authorities had not publicly established the precise financial arrangement in the material reviewed.

The confrontation then became violent, police said. Investigators were told that the victim was made to remove his clothes and was directed toward the backyard. He refused to go, according to the police account, telling the group, “You’re going to have to kill me here.” Authorities allege Polk then produced a handgun and fired, striking the victim through his right thigh. Police records cited by local news outlets say two other men began punching the victim in the head, causing him to lose several teeth. The reports do not identify those two men by name.

Authorities also allege the victim’s cellphone was taken during the encounter. That allegation is central to the robbery case because investigators were not describing only an assault or shooting; police reported that property was taken while the victim was being confronted. The publicly available accounts do not say whether any cash changed hands, whether the disputed vehicle was present at the property or whether the people involved had documentation of the earlier transaction. Those unanswered questions leave the reported cellphone theft as the clearest property-taking allegation described in the accounts of the Sept. 23 incident.

The victim was later treated at a hospital, where investigators interviewed him. WMC reported that Memphis police spoke with him at Baptist East Hospital and that he identified people he believed were responsible. Law&Crime likewise reported that police learned the details of the incident through an interview with the victim. The available reports do not provide an updated medical condition or describe whether he required additional treatment after the gunshot wound and dental injuries. Authorities also did not publicly identify the victim in the reports reviewed, and his name is therefore being withheld.

Police work continued beyond the hospital interview. WMC reported that investigators identified Polk as the alleged shooter and began looking for him the same day. Officers later encountered a black 2013 BMW that matched a vehicle previously reported stolen, according to the station. Police attempted a traffic stop after seeing the BMW in a parking lot on Jackson Avenue, but the driver allegedly continued onto Chelsea Avenue rather than stopping. That sequence produced additional allegations against Polk beyond the robbery case, including evading arrest and driving without a valid license, according to WMC.

Investigators later received another location for the BMW through a Flock camera, WMC reported. The vehicle was seen in the area of Watkins Street and Jackson Avenue and was found parked and unoccupied. Police said a man they believed had been driving it was standing near the vehicle. Officers made contact and identified him as Polk. WMC reported that he was taken to police headquarters for questioning, but investigators did not obtain a statement at that time because he reported being heavily under the influence of multiple intoxicants and was considered unable to provide one. The report does not say what substances were involved.

Jobin’s alleged role was different from the conduct police attributed to Polk. Investigators accused her of helping bring the victim to the location rather than firing the gun or carrying out the reported beating. Law&Crime, citing the affidavit, said she was accused of “orchestrating the luring” by encouraging the victim to ride in the vehicle. WREG similarly reported that the victim identified Jobin as the person who lured him to Pope Street. The public reporting reviewed does not allege that Jobin personally shot or struck the victim, and the case against her should not be described as though police had made those allegations.

Polk, by contrast, faced a wider set of accusations tied both to the reported attack and to the separate vehicle investigation described by WMC. In addition to the robbery count, the station reported charges of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, being a felon in possession of a firearm, theft of property involving a motor vehicle valued between $2,500 and $10,000, evading arrest and driving without a valid license. Law&Crime also reported the firearm and vehicle-theft allegations. The reports reviewed do not provide the underlying conviction associated with the felon-in-possession charge, and no such history should be inferred beyond the charge itself.

At least two other men were described in police accounts as participating in the violence, and the man connected to the vehicle-related money dispute was also identified only by a nickname in the local reporting. WREG reported shortly after the incident that police were looking for several additional people. The later Law&Crime report confirmed arrests of Jobin and Polk but did not report arrests of the unnamed men. The available material does not establish whether additional suspects have since been charged, and no later publicly indexed update located in the sources reviewed resolved that question.

The case remains based largely on allegations set out in police records and the victim’s account. The public reports do not describe forensic testing, surveillance video from the Pope Street property, recovery of the victim’s phone or a weapon tied to the shooting. They also do not provide a defense account from Jobin or Polk. Those gaps are significant because an arrest marks the beginning of a criminal case, not a finding that the allegations are true. Prosecutors would have to prove any charges that proceed, and the defendants are entitled to contest the evidence against them.

Jobin and Polk were expected to appear in court shortly after their arrests. A later Law&Crime account said they were scheduled to return to court the following Monday. The sources reviewed did not provide a later disposition, updated bond information or a new report on the victim’s condition. As of Nov. 9, the publicly indexed reporting reviewed continued to describe the case as pending allegations stemming from the Sept. 23 encounter.

Author note: Last updated November 9, 2026.