The murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida could have been avoided, had he just not conducted himself like a criminal, so Geraldo Rivera of Fox News comments (via ThinkProgress).
BRIAN KILMEADE KILMEADE (co-host): Let’s talk about the Trayvon Martin case and what’s going on in Florida right now.
GERALDO RIVERA: I believe that George Zimmerman, the overzealous neighborhood watch captain should be investigated to the fullest extent of the law and if he is criminally liable, he should be prosecuted. But I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly to not let their children go out wearing hoodies. I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.
JULIET HUDDY (guest-host): What do you mean?
RIVERA: When you, when you see a kid walking — Juliet — when you see a kid walking down the street, particularly a dark skinned kid like my son Cruz, who I constantly yelled at when he was going out wearing a damn hoodie or those pants around his ankles. Take that hood off, people look at you and they — what do they think? What’s the instant identification, what’s the instant association?
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Uh-oh.
RIVERA: It’s those crime scene surveillance tapes. Every time you see someone sticking up a 7-11, the kid is wearing a hoodie. […] When you see a black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street. You try to avoid that confrontation.
The hoodie was responsible? Comment unnecessary.
I come via google looking for logical/philosophical analysis re: Geraldo Rivera's fallacious remarks.
Exactly what sort of logical fallacy did he commit?
OK, a "non-sequitur blog", this might be good.
"Comment unnecessary"?! 🙁
You really put a lot of effort into this post.
Keep up the good work.
"Exactly what sort of logical fallacy did he commit?"
A hooded sweatshirt is a common article of clothing, especially when it's raining; and it was. An informal fallacy is simply a very bad argument and not a logic flaw.
As for the case itself, unless some new evidence comes to light George Zimmerman will never be convicted of anything.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012
The EYEwitness did not see who started the fight, but he did see George Zimmerman (the guy in the red sweater) was losing badly. If George Zimmerman started the fight it isn't self defense, if he was attacked then it is (self defense).
None of this makes him innocent, it just means there isn't enough evidence to convict; which is why he hasn't been charged with anything yet.
@Chris The fallacy commited here is called a Hasty generalization. It is when a generalization is made with insufficeint evidence to suport it. Rivera's arguement also demonstrates some comfirmation bias. He points out times when people wearing hoodies are commiting crimes while completely ignoring the significantly larger group of other people who wear hoodies and do not commit crimes.
^^^Hasty Generalization
Yes that's the word I was looking for. I think Mr. Zimmerman may also have committed that one too. I think people are rightfully angry about racial profiling, but they shouldn't forget about the legal matter of whether George Zimmerman was defending himself or not.
False cause. Thanks for the sarcasm B :- )
It's yet another version of, "If you wear clothes in public, and I disapprove of your clothing, you deserve whatever happens to you." Young people, always wearing the wrong clothes.