Man shot outside Nashville bus station charged; guard’s gunfire still under review

The man shot outside Nashville’s Greyhound terminal has been booked on aggravated assault. The security guard who shot him—including, according to witness video described by WSMV, after following him behind a car—still faces a review of whether he should be charged. Those are separate questions: an allegation that the wounded man attacked the guard does not settle whether the gunfire was justified. ^{1 8 26}

McIntosh, 22, of Toxey, Alabama, was discharged from the hospital and booked Sunday night, October 25, after suffering gunshot wounds to his hip and leg. His bond was set at $10,000. Douglas West, the 39-year-old guard, remains the subject of a review by Metro Nashville Police and the District Attorney’s Office before a charging decision, according to WSMV’s October 26 follow-up. No date for that decision has been announced. ^{1 25 26}

The booking is a concrete development beyond the initial police announcement, which said McIntosh would be arrested upon hospital discharge. It is not a conviction, and setting bond does not establish that he paid it or left custody. Likewise, leaving the hospital does not establish that he has fully recovered. ^{4 25}

The shooting happened outside the terminal on Rep. John Lewis Way South on Sunday, October 25, 2026, shortly before 7:30 a.m. The police announcement puts it at 7:25 a.m.; WKRN reported approximately 7:27 a.m. The small timing difference does not change the central sequence under investigation. ^{4 6}

Police say West had told McIntosh to leave the station about 45 minutes before the confrontation. They allege McIntosh later approached him, threw hot coffee into his face without provocation and began hitting him. West told investigators that McIntosh charged him and threatened to kill him. The alleged unprovoked attack is the police account; the reported death threat is West’s account to investigators, not an independently established finding. ¹

Witnesses described the altercation beginning with a man throwing a drink on the guard. That description need not contradict the police allegation of hot coffee. It overlaps on a thrown drink without, by itself, establishing the drink’s temperature or the complete sequence of physical contact. Those distinctions matter more than treating the accounts as competing versions simply because they use different words. ¹

WSMV’s description of the witness recording supplies a more consequential sequence. West and McIntosh are fighting on the street outside the station. Someone who appears to be another security guard steps between them and pushes McIntosh away. West then draws his gun and fires in McIntosh’s direction. McIntosh runs behind a car; West follows him and fires again. ¹

Those are two firing actions described in the footage, not a separately verified, exhaustive count of every shot fired. The movement between them is important: the review must account for the circumstances of the gunfire, including after McIntosh moved behind the car, rather than stopping at the allegation that he attacked West earlier.

Police describe a separate recording from a nearby security camera as capturing the entire incident and corroborating West’s account. They say it shows McIntosh making a slight movement toward West before he fired. That is investigators’ characterization of the security recording, not an independent determination that every shot was justified. ¹

Both recordings belong in the account. The witness-video description documents an intervention, a drawn gun, McIntosh’s movement behind a car and West’s pursuit. The police description of the security footage adds what investigators say was a movement toward West before he fired. The available descriptions do not resolve how that movement relates to each firing action. ¹

West stayed at the scene until officers arrived and was questioned, according to witnesses and police cited by WSMV. Police described burns, scrapes and bruises to his face. Those injuries are relevant evidence of the confrontation; they are not, on their own, an answer to the question of whether the force he used was lawful. His employer has not been established, and working security at the terminal does not establish direct employment by Greyhound. ¹

The reporting also differs on McIntosh’s first-name spelling: WSMV’s original account uses Jacory, while later case reporting uses Jacorey. This account uses his surname rather than choosing between them without confirmation. ^{1 25}

The case therefore remains on two tracks. McIntosh faces the announced assault charge. West’s potential criminal liability remains under review—not resolved by McIntosh’s arrest, and not closed by the absence of a charging announcement. ^{25 26}