Robbery -- The Peanut Barrel Rule

There were plenty of decent ledes in the exercise you did Monday. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

Late yesterday, a local convenience store was robbed and the clerk held at gunpoint.

This is factually correct. But does it go to end result and ultimate outcome? It does not. It omits a major conclusion: that the clerk then shot and killed the robber. It's simply not sufficient.

Here was a more acceptable lede:

A man who robbed a convenience store late Tuesday night was found dead by police after being shot by the store clerk.

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:

A late-night robbery of the O-Mart convenience store in Haslett last night ended abruptly with the robber getting shot and the shore clerk getting fired.

. . . and . . .

When Michael Layoux was robbed last night at the Haslett O-Mart, he was prepared to defend himself. Unfortunately for Robert Wiess, the armed robber, Layoux succeeded in doing just that.

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 because he acted to save his own life!

This lede hit came close to hitting that sweet spot:

A Lansing Community College student was fired after acting in self-defense against an armed robber late Tuesday night.

Very good. But it's also less than clear. For example, who fired the student? Was it the school? You really need to mention that it was a . . . student working as a convenience store clerk was fired from his job after . . .

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.

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.