A San Jose man who shot and killed an East Palo Alto resident following a parking spat in 2009 was sentenced to 11 years in state prison.
On Aug. 12, 2009, Dante Rodney Strauter, 24, shot and killed Joel Long, 27, in front of a residence on the 2200 block of Ralmar Street between Garden Street and Bay Road. The shooting followed an argument between two women after one woman blocked the driveway and would not move to let the other leave.
The first woman eventually moved her car and left the area. But she returned with Strauter, who got into an argument with Long. Strauter returned to his car, grabbed a handgun and shot Long multiple times before fleeing. He was arrested the next day outside his home in San Jose.
At a hearing Jan. 29 in Redwood City, San Mateo County Judge Clifford Cretan sentenced Strauter to 10 years for a manslaughter conviction and an additional 16 months for two felony probation violations, San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said. He was denied probation.
Wagstaffe said he was seeking a 21-year sentence, versus the defense’s seven years and four months.
“We were disappointed; of course we wanted more,” Wagstaffe said. “We think Mr. Strauter has well established over the course of his life that’s he’s a dangerous person. He was on probation at time he did this and he was carrying a gun.”
Strauter originally faced a possible murder conviction, but in November a San Mateo County jury convicted him of the lesser voluntary manslaughter charge and an enhancement for use of a firearm.
This is yet another story about some gunman that obviously thought that he was a big man with the pistol and shooting some innocent party. However does he realize that he was no more than a complete idiot and shall have plenty of time to think about his wrong doings.
Why didn’t they arrest the woman who left and then brought back her personal gunman? I’m sure she was expecting some kind of violence in her “honor”, and probably was well aware that the guy was armed. What a stupid thing to fight about and kill over.
Still waiting for the Palo Alto online to do a story on the child pornography case involving multi-millionaire Greenplum founder Luke Lonergan, convicted of child pornography. Lonergan- featured in the Wall Street Journal; Forbes and Wired and one of the most prominent citizens to be arrested for child porn in recent years by the DA – but the Palo Alto online does nothing? Thank god for your competitor, the Palo Alto Daily Post who went to the trouble to ask the San Mateo DA’s office why they never listed the Lonergan case in their daily “cases of interest “ list and then did an investigative story.
Who’s minding the store in Silicon Valley? – I hope that you’re not holding your breath! You make excellent points. Note that the E. Palo Alto city manager is interested in outsourcing our police needs to the Sheriff’s Office. Big bummer that PA Online is in such PC/lockdown mode that they keep editing my comments about that, as well as the possibility of PAPD taking over our police responsibilities, even pro-racial profiling stance of the the last chief and many PA residents. But when it comes to a Caucasian bad apple of prominence and means – nope, nada, nothing, zilch.
Well , the censorship over at the Atherton Almanac is even worse.Even though the Palo Alto Daily Post did a story about Luke Lonergan child pornography arrest where the reporter talks about how Wagstaffe failed to include the case of Lonergan, one of the richest guy ever to be charged by the DA, in his daily cases of interest list to the press, the Almanac keeps deleting any comment that correctly asks why others aren’t reporting on this. Instead of reporting on Lonergan, they’re censoring any comments and scrubbing any mention of his name. That makes the handling of this case even more fishy. Not very good journalism. One would think reporters would at least be curious, especially as the California Bar has already sent a warning to DA Wagstaffe about lying to the press about cases. The Almanac and other papers were sent a copy of the official documentation on this matter from the Bar but they still censor us instead do asking questions and investigating.
Incomprehensible and others who are interested – I posted this on The Almanac’s Town Square. Any bets on whether they’ll honestly respond vs. delete my post?
http://www.almanacnews.com/square/2014/02/04/so-why-no-news-or-posts-about-luke-lonergan-
Yes, Hmm, I saw that they locked down the thread about Luke Lonergan over at the Almanac. Glad you posted again.
Why they keep censoring comments when the Palo Alto Daily Post has already done a very interesting story on it, defies belief. It would behoove reporters to fact check Wagstaffe’s “excuse” as to why he didn’t include the Lonergan case in his Daily Cases of Interest list to the press, and why he told the Palo Alto Daily Post reporter that the Lonergan case wasn’t even familiar to him.. even though Wagstaffe’s had the case for 19 months and Lonergan hired “Super Lawyer” Ryan Okabe from LA who defended one of the people in the OJ Simpson burglary case..
It’s pretty nuts that a paper would censor comments from people who raise legitimate questions. One has to wonder if the Almanac is in the DA’s pocket.
Watch for this comment to be deleted.
Thanks for being persistent, Hmmm/
Oops, Hmm. Looks like they deleted your post on Lonergan over at the Almanac.
PA Online – you write: [portion removed due to potentially defamatory content needing verification.] Fine, but if you’d been doing your job as journalists, you’d know already that there’s plenty of verification on this case. How come you haven’t done a story?
Hmmm,
An editor and reporter for the Almanac are working this story, but since this individual is not a local resident in our circulation area it wouldn’t normally be covered. The posts you and another individual have made are highly defamatory if not true, and it is you (and the other poster) that are being protected by the removal of these posts, since you are legally liable for libel made in an online forum like this. There are many stories we don’t cover because they don’t have anything to do with our coverage area, which is the case with any news outlet. If you Google this person’s name, there is nothing that has been written by any news organization on this allegation, so we are hardly alone in being cautious. Whatever the Post ran, it is their legal risk and not available online. We will report on this if and when we can verify the facts.
Thank you for your response, Town Square Monitor.
Another question, while we’re at it: Why do you keep removing parts of my post about Sheriff Munks and former Chief Lynn Johnson?
Hmmm,
Your comments about the EPA police were edited because you confused the Sheriff’s officials who were arrested in Las Vegas as having a connection with the Palo Alto Police department, which they did not. Our edits were intended to eliminate this inaccuracy, while preserving your point that the option of EPA going back to being policed by the Sheriff’s office involved the Las Vegas episode wasn’t appealing and that the previous chief of police in Palo Alto got into a controversy over racial profiling. Hope that helps.
No, you misunderstood. I was posting that BOTH of those law enforcement organizations aren’t pristine, and posted the evidence supporting my opinion. The evidence: The sheriff and undersheriff being busted and detained in LV (both are PAPD “alums), AND the former PAPD chief, who wanted PAPD officers to racially profile black males in Palo Alto. She said it with many witnesses, and it was videotaped, so it’s not hearsay. I posted my opinions about both organizations in various ways, which you kept deleting portions of. Please remember that Johnson did NOT order her officers to stop and question white males, even though one of the suspects (and who was apprehended), was a white male.
We had no problem with your separate criticisms relating to the Sheriff and the Palo Alto Police Department, only your attempt to link the two. San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks was with the Palo Alto Police department more than 20 years ago. To suggest that is relevant, and without stating it was that long ago made that part of your post misleading.
Misleading, really? He’s also a Palo Alto native, and Bolanos is a PAPD “alum” as well. Munks also lived in Palo Alto for many years, as an adult, and local officer. Why is any of that misleading? I was pointing out, from my POV, why neither agency is the best choice to head up law enforcement in E. Palo Alto.
It seems to me that you’re holding my potentially controversial opinions to a higher standard than many other, less controversial opinions.
I do appreciate this dialog, and your willingness to answer honestly. I don’t want to repeatedly waste your time, so I’ll let this be. Again, thank you for your time and honesty.