Frag #06 -- Subordination, Complexity, and Length:  This writer averaged 8.9 words per main clause, and the fragment is nine words long. To this writer, therefore, it would have had the processing rhythm of a good sentence -- it would have felt just right as a sentence. It is, of course, a subordinate clause fragment, but when we attach it to the following main clause, to which it probably belongs, we have an 18-word main clause, twice the writer's average. But it would have a second-level embedded clause. Were it not for that second level embedding, this writer might well have handled it. [His longest main clause contains 21 words.]

RO #15 -- Other: The run-on is between the first two in a series of three main clauses, and the first two are more closely related to each other (It was getting dark.) than either is to the third. A comma here would be acceptable. Unfortunately, it would  ruin the close connection established by the run-on. If the student were analyzing this paper himself, he would find the run-on and probably ask what to do about it. Another option would be to subordinate the first two main clauses: "[When the night came], and [the lights were turnd off], I brought out my knife and started cuting throw the wire." Syntactically this option would keep the closer connection between "night came" and "lights were turned off." (Personally, I was more thrown off by the misspelling of "through" than I was by the run-on.)
RO #16 -- Contrast: I have the sense, with this run-on and the following one, that the writer is having a glorious time presenting his story and that the run-ons are his attempt to express the haste of the pursuit. Thus the omission of the verb in "I to the german border." The lack of the verb actually suggests, at least to me, that the means of getting there (ran, walked, crawled) wasn't important. Yes, I would praise the omission of the verb. I think, however, that the run-ons probably confuse the reader. Commas might work -- short main clauses in a series, but, had I the opportunity, I would suggest semicolons to emphasize the contrast between "I" and "they": "I cleared a 5 foot fence with ease; they got out there tanks and dogs to hunt me down;  I, to the german border." 
RO #17 -- Contrast: See RO #16.
RO #18 -- Contrast between hiding and coming out into the open: "I took off into the woods until the shots were over; then I came out into the open."
RO #19 -- Amplification: The second main clause provides details about the walking: "I guess they thought I was killed in the bombing} so I started walking -- about 1/2 mile down the road I came up to a consentation camp."