Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

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:

A man's body was found in a field near O-Mart's Haslett location late yesterday by Meridian Township police officers.

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 another lede that is technically correct, but missing something crucial:

A store clerk at a Haslett O-Mart convenience store was fired today after bringing his .25-caliber pistol to work yesterday.

It gets one ultimate outcome; that the clerk was fired. But it omits something huge: what the clerk did with the pistol. I mean, he killed somebody! That's no secondary detail.

Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was found shot to death, or that a man was fired for bringing a gun to work, and leave it at that?

In that sense, even this lede fell short:

Michael Layoux, an O-Mart employee in Haslett, shot and killed a robber who attempted to steal from the convenience store late yesterday night.

Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. You tried that with these two ledes here:

A Haslett convenience store clerk has lost his job after he shot and killed a gunman attempting a robbery late yesterday.

. . . and . . .

Shooting an armed robber in self-defense may have saved a local convenience store clerk's life, but it cost him his job.

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?

I say, yes. 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!

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's what makes this story stand out.

Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on 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.