This is a fairly good attempt (hence the claps), but it's rather below your usual quality, and the conclusion is rather wrong.

The fundamental question is to what extent the police are, on average, responding impartially based on the actions of the individual and the conditions at hand, and to what extent are they acting out of racial bias. But though you treat it as if it can address this question, Ross' paper actually can't.

Ross' paper is, as a theoretical treatment of the matter, rather nice. It gives a compelling alternative hypothesis for why we should reduce our confidence in Fryer's paper.

However, you absolutely cannot draw from Ross' theoretical work that "The actual conclusion to be drawn from Fryer’s paper is that police tend to code Black people as more threatening than white people in objectively similar circumstances." because Ross' model depends on multiple untested assumptions. There are several unbound parameters.

You can make a model that produces Fryer's data but still has racist police action w.r.t. killings. But is that what actually happens? Ross doesn't have the data to say.

You cannot use the possibility of a resolution as empirical evidence that this is the resolution if you want to base your outlook on evidence. Normally you're always pulling towards evidence--here, hopefully inadvertently, you're pulling away.

It's quite true that Fryer's analysis may yield an incorrect conclusion because of the hypothetical situations that Ross models. Reality may match one of Ross's models quite well--but it also may not, and it is irresponsible to draw a conclusion without evidence in hand.

The appropriate response is therefore hmm, Fryer might be mostly right, or might not...let's see what data we could collect in order to investigate further. It's not a done deal, yet.

Ross himself admits that the empirical question remains (and isn't easy to resolve): "It will likely be difficult to empirically evaluate if Simpson’s paradox truly explains the results of Fryer (2016)"