Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the "robbery" exercise you did. 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 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

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 the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layoux was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess.


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


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.