Extra

The police have typed up a facially absurd account, directing it at one councilmember. Notice how it carefully avoids giving any indication why protesters had a beef with *this* car as opposed to any other. Notice how, without supporting evidence, it attempts to condemn the protest and exonerate the driver. Notice how it is silent about the man who assisted the getaway. 

The protesters themselves report that the car was not passively behind the march, but was in fact menacing the march in an attempt to drive through. In this account, the driver initiated the conflict by making a credible threat to injure or kill protesters if they would not let him drive through.  

The police have, here, already spun a yarn in which the protesters, for no reason whatsoever, attacked this car while the innocent driver merely tried to escape.  

In this "detailed response", the police have offered up the driver as his own alibi.  

Similarly, the police report *as a fact* that the driver's father was "preparing to the call the police" when they tracked him down. That is (biased) conclusion drawing, not evidence. (Indeed, the write reveals that driver left the scene, went home, had a conversation with his father, returned to Telegraph, and looked for people all before speaking with police. Yet, when the police tracked them down - the father was "preparing to call the police".) 

In short, the police pack a lot of insinuation into the undisputed fact that the conflict between protesters and driver began prior to the time of the hit and run. This "detailed response" reveals a department that appears biased towards exonerating the driver rather than protecting the community.