He's using a phrasing that is actually fairly common in logical philosophy.
Which is great if you're a logical philosopher. I still prefer English.
Again, in terms of logical philosophy (which he's speaking in) the fallacy is not clear. A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in general posits an event as a result of something that precedes it in the absence of any reasonable causality...because temporal sequence sets up a sort of false causality. If I wear black shoes to a sporting event and my favorite team wins, a post hoc fallacy would be to say that I should wear my "lucky black shoes" to every game because that is what caused them to win.
It seems pretty obvious to me. Perhaps I should become a Logical Philosopher.
I reckon most reasonable people of average intelligence would see the fallacy. To be honest, what I don't see is how it relates directly to the issue at hand. I prefer concrete thinking to abstract thinking. Just my personal preference, but in my profession concrete thinking is a good thing.
In this case (the OP), the statement is too broad to call out that fallacy (although a more exact statement might make it apt) because there are in fact mountains of examples in which harming someone is the actual proximate cause of his or her death.
(my highlight) Quite right and again, referring to my profession being able to relate an issue of harm leading to death is a case of concrete thinking. But if there are mountains of good, solid examples to use then why use obscure, false and / or meaningless ones..? To highlight the fallacy..? What's the point of stating something that is obviously false in order to prove that a Latin phrase is a falsehood..? It doesn't make sense and is, to me, a complete waste of time and effort.
I'm not good at philosophy. I admit that. I do like to engage in some discussions when I see a point worth making and I agree that Philosophy can be illuminating in many instances. Unfortunately, for me, a lot of it comes across as stating the glaringly obvious but dressing it up in an attempt to sound clever.
Perhaps its just as well that I never encountered Socrates in the market place. It might not have been good for either of our souls. LOL.