Two people were arrested, but police accounts describe additional men whose identities and case status were not clear in public reports.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — The arrests of two people in an alleged North Memphis robbery account for only part of a police narrative that describes several other men, an unresolved vehicle-money dispute and a wounded victim whose later condition has not been publicly reported.
Bailey Jobin, 23, and Joseph Polk, 20, were arrested after a man told police he was taken to a property near Pope Street and Omar Robinson Street on Sept. 23, confronted over money, shot in the thigh, beaten and robbed of his cellphone. Yet the victim’s account, as summarized by local reporting and an affidavit cited by Law&Crime, describes more people than the two defendants. Another man rode in the vehicle, a man known by a nickname arrived to demand money, and two unidentified men allegedly struck the victim. Public reports reviewed for this article did not establish how many of those descriptions referred to the same people.
That uncertainty is one of several limits on what can be stated about the case. WREG initially reported that police were looking for multiple additional people, including a man the victim knew as “One-legged Jay.” Later reports from WMC and Law&Crime confirmed the arrests of Jobin and Polk but did not announce charges against the other alleged participants. No publicly indexed follow-up located in the sources reviewed identified those men, described new arrests or said investigators had cleared anyone mentioned in the victim’s account.
The charges against the two known defendants also were reported differently by the outlets reviewing police and court information. WMC said both Jobin and Polk were charged with especially aggravated robbery. Law&Crime, citing Shelby County court records, described the charge against each as aggravated robbery. Because the available reporting does not explain whether that difference reflected a subsequent amendment, separate records or different terminology, the discrepancy remains unresolved. Polk was separately reported as facing firearm, stolen-motor-vehicle, evading-arrest and driver’s-license charges.
Authorities attributed different conduct to Jobin and Polk. Police alleged that Jobin helped get the victim into the vehicle that carried him to the property. Law&Crime reported that an affidavit described her as “orchestrating the luring” by encouraging the victim to ride with her. She was reported to have sat with him in the back seat while two men were in front. The public reports do not accuse Jobin of firing the shot or personally beating the victim. Her alleged role, as described by investigators, centered on bringing him to the location where the later confrontation occurred.
Polk was accused of a more direct role in the violence. The victim told investigators he knew him as “Jay Pointer,” according to WMC. Police later identified Polk as the alleged shooter. Investigators say that when the confrontation at Pope Street escalated and the victim refused an instruction to go toward the backyard, Polk drew a handgun and shot him through the right thigh. Polk has not been convicted of that allegation, and the public reports reviewed do not include his account of what happened at the property.
Before that shooting, another man arrived and demanded money tied to a vehicle, according to police accounts. The reporting does not provide his legal name. Law&Crime said the victim reportedly owed him money concerning a vehicle, while WREG described the dispute as involving money the man had provided in connection with a vehicle purchase. The distinction cannot be resolved from the available reports. What is consistent is that police viewed a disagreement over money and a vehicle as part of the circumstances surrounding the confrontation.
Investigators said the victim was then required to remove his clothes and was told to go toward the backyard. The reason for that instruction was not explained in the reports reviewed. The victim refused and told the group, “You’re going to have to kill me here.” Police allege the shooting followed. Two other men then punched the victim in the head, according to WMC and Law&Crime, causing several of his teeth to be knocked out. Those reports do not identify the alleged assailants or establish whether either was the man who had demanded money.
The victim’s cellphone was also reported stolen. Public accounts do not say whether it was recovered. They do not describe the seizure of cash from the victim, payment of the disputed money or recovery of other property from the Pope Street location. Nor do the reports say whether investigators later searched the home or obtained a warrant for the premises. The limited information means that the public narrative of the robbery is centered on the alleged cellphone taking rather than a documented transfer of the money at the root of the dispute.
After the incident, investigators interviewed the victim at Baptist East Hospital, WMC reported. He identified people he believed had participated in the attack, helping police develop suspects. The reports describe a gunshot that passed through his right thigh and dental injuries from the alleged beating, but they do not provide a later medical condition. No public update reviewed for this article says whether he was released from the hospital, required surgery or suffered lasting complications. Those details remain unknown rather than facts that can be inferred from the initial injuries.
Police then searched for Polk and encountered a separate vehicle issue. WMC reported that task force officers found a black 2013 BMW matching a prior stolen-vehicle report backed into a Jackson Avenue parking lot. When officers attempted a stop, the driver allegedly did not comply and traveled onto Chelsea Avenue. The report later linked Polk to charges of motor-vehicle theft, evading arrest and driving without a valid license. The public reporting does not establish that the BMW was the vehicle used earlier to transport the victim to Pope Street.
A Flock camera later showed the BMW in the area of Watkins Street and Jackson Avenue, WMC reported. Police found the car unoccupied and contacted a man nearby whom they identified as Polk. He was taken to 170 N. Main St. for questioning. According to WMC, investigators considered him unable to give a statement at that time after he said he was heavily under the influence of multiple intoxicants. The source did not identify the substances or report what, if anything, Polk said in a later interview.
Polk’s additional charges, as reported by WMC, included employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The latter charge establishes that authorities alleged a legally disqualifying prior felony status; the public reporting reviewed does not identify the prior conviction itself. It would therefore be inaccurate to add a criminal history not contained in the available records. Likewise, the theft charge involving property valued between $2,500 and $10,000 was described by WMC as a motor-vehicle theft count tied to the broader police investigation.
The public record also leaves questions about evidence that could become important as the case proceeds. Reports do not say a firearm was recovered or linked through testing to the wound. They do not describe fingerprints, DNA evidence, footage from the property or records showing communications among the people accused of arranging the encounter. The victim’s identification and account are prominently described, but the sources reviewed do not provide a complete inventory of evidence collected by detectives. Absence from public reporting does not mean such evidence does not exist; it means its existence has not been established in the material reviewed.
Neither Jobin nor Polk was quoted giving a defense to the allegations in the reports examined. The accounts also do not identify attorneys speaking on their behalf. That leaves the publicly available story heavily weighted toward the police narrative and the victim’s statements. For that reason, the allegations must remain attributed rather than stated as settled fact. Arrests and criminal charges are accusations, and questions about identification, intent, participation and the reliability of evidence ultimately belong to the court process if the cases move forward.
Initial reports said the defendants were expected in court soon after their arrests. Law&Crime later reported that Jobin and Polk were scheduled for another appearance the following Monday. The accessible sources reviewed did not provide a subsequent disposition, updated bond information, an announced trial date or confirmation that the unnamed men had been charged. As of Nov. 9, the case therefore remained publicly defined by two known arrests and several significant unanswered questions about the other people and evidence described in the original police account.
Author note: Last updated November 9, 2026.