Robbery -- Peanut Barrel Rule

There were plenty of good ledes in the exercise you did Monday. People adhered to the 32-word lede limit we have in place right now, and you made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were alloted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Here was an acceptable lede:

Michael Layoux shot and killed the man who had just robbed the convenience store he worked at late last night.

It gets the basics of the story correct. It's not wrong by any means. But it's missing context.

Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that someone working at a store shot someone robbing the store, and leave it at that?

No, I think you'd throw in what made this story unique and different from other robbery stories. You tried that with these two ledes here:

Michael Layoux, a clerk at the O-Mart convenience store in Haslett, made a decision against company policy. That decision may have saved his life.

. . . and . . .

During his shift late yesterday, an employee of the O-Mart convenience store in Haslett shot and killed a man attempting to rob the store, but will not be charged for his death.

These are good ledes. Really good ledes. Concise, contextual, the whole shebang. But let's put it up against the Peanut Barrel rule again: is whatever really, really made this story stand out in these ledes? Are these the best ledes you can come up with?

I think you can take it a step better. My gut tells me that what really made this story the most unique is that the clerk legally defended himself -- and lost his job for saving his own life!

This lede hit that sweet spot:

A student at Lansing Community College was fired from a convenience store in Haslett after shooting a man who was in the process of robbing the store.

Very good. But the ledes I thought were best captured ALL the dynamic elements in clear, clean language:

An attempted theft was foiled late yesterday at a Haslett convenience store when the clerk on duty shot and killed the robber in self-defense, resulting in the loss of his job.

. . . and . . .

After shooting and killing a man in self-defense, a Lansing Community College student was fired from his job after the Haslett convenience store he worked at was robbed late yesterday.

Still, I think I could top those ledes. The one point missing was the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job. (And it's only 31 words!)

Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.

. . . or . . .

Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.