« Smaller Fires Near Georgia Blaze Expected to Be Examined | Main | Verdict Received in Car/Bus Collision Case »

Man Charged in St. Paul Weekend Murder

An article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune has reported the shooting of a local man by the brother of his fiancé. The 23-year-old man was charged on the shooting today, while the act occurred this past Sunday night. The shooting is alleged to have occurred during an argument between the two men on Sunday night in a parking lot behind an apartment building. The victim's fiancé heard two gunshots, and the victim stumbled in to tell her he was shot before he died. The article says the two men had a history of fueding, one that included previously ramming one anothers' vehicles on a freeway. The accused denied being at the victim's apartment, and apparently returned the gun he used to his girlfriend after committing the act.

This is a solid piece of hard news without a real twist or angle. The thing that distinguishes it from a story that would be reporting any other murder is the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. This relationship is thus establishes in the lead early on, right after the mention of the murder. It also gives the location of the shooting, the Highland Park area of St. Paul. The victim and perpetrator are then identified, and a brief chronology is given including the ties between the two men. The only attribution given is lifted from the police complaint. It specifically mentions what the perpatrator did after committing the crime, whic his engaging in rapport with his spouse. The article is pretty straightforward, and would likely be shorter if not for the small angle related to the two mens' knowledge of one another.

Pioneer Press coverage of the article uses the awkward phrase "sister's boyfriend" instead of fiancé, which sort of screws up the lead in my opinion. The article also seems choopier and really lacks any semblance of narrative flow, and makes it less pleasaing to read.

I prefer the Tribune's article because it flows easier, there's attempts at a sort of chronology midway through, and it contains all the same facts as the Pioneer Press article. You get all the necessary information quickly from either and might not need on past the first graph, but the Pioneer Press piece's first graph also feels awkward and screwed up do to some confusing wordchoice.