UI grad student arrested after tussle at Trump protest on campus

UI grad student arrested after tussle at Trump protest on campus

URBANA — A University of Illinois graduate student who got into an altercation with two other students while speaking at an anti-Trump rally was given a notice to appear in court next month, police said.

Tariq Khan, a graduate student and instructor in history and an Air Force veteran, was criticizing Trump before a small group of protesters Thursday near the Alma Mater statue when he was heckled by one of a half-dozen people watching.

"No one's scared of you, 50-year-old man. Don't you have kids to look after?" one student yelled, according to a cellphone video posted on a conservative campus-news website and later given to UI police.

Shortly afterward, the video shows Khan confronting that student and another who was recording the rally and the altercation.

"You want to threaten my kids?" Khan yelled repeatedly. "Say something about my kids again."

The onlookers said they weren't threatening his children, but the argument escalated and Khan eventually grabbed one student's cellphone and walked away. He later threw it on the sidewalk, damaging the phone, according to UI police spokesman Patrick Wade.

The students called UI police and two officers came to the scene, but in the meantime, the rally had ended, Wade said.

Khan later came to meet voluntarily with officers and was cooperative with police, Wade said.

He was arrested on preliminary charges of criminal damage to property over $500 and given a notice to appear in court Dec. 12, where he could be formally charged.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Bystander wrote on November 21, 2017 at 7:11 am
Profile Picture

Tariq Khan is a hothead who gives the Left a bad name. He is an agitator who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

CallSaul wrote on November 21, 2017 at 11:11 am

You sure do have a deep seated prediliction for demanding those who dare to disagree with you be arrested and prosecuted...

It'll be amusing to watch you squirm and weasel once the indictments really start to roll out of Mueller's office.


Tom Napier wrote on November 24, 2017 at 7:11 pm

"You sure do have a deep seated prediliction for demanding those who dare to disagree with you be arrested and prosecuted..."

Now, there's the pot calling the kettle black.  Again.

Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.  Couldn't pass it up.

CallSaul wrote on November 24, 2017 at 10:11 pm


What are you even talking about...?

Be specific...if you can...

Tom Napier wrote on November 26, 2017 at 5:11 pm

To be specific, some definitions of "The pot calling the kettle black."

Urban Dictionary: "An expression that is said when one accuses another person of that which they are equally guilty of."

Wikipedia: " ... a proverbial idiom ... It is glossed in the original sources as being used of a person who is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another and is thus an example of psychological projection."

Wickipedia goes on to define psychological projection as "A theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually intolerant may constantly accuse other people of being intolerant. It incorporates blame shifting." Their words, not mine.

The point is that you are utterly intolerant of others' opinions that differ from yours, yet you continuously castigate others for disagreeing with you.

CallSaul wrote on November 27, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Perhaps you might read my comment again. If you do, it's possible, though admittedly probably a long shot, that you'll notice that I was referring to that commenter's predilection for calling for those he disagrees to be arrested and prosecuted or in this forum, for those he disagrees with to be banned.

You may also be able to become aware, if only through great and perhaps previously unparalleled effort on your part, of the fact that I have never called for the arrest, prosecution or even banning of anyone who disagrees with me.

You may then, if fortune smiles on us all, be able to understand that these two patterns of behavior are in fact not equivalent. Then, with great luck, you may understand that none of your extremely helpful and sooper dooper impressive definitions actually apply…

Sadly however, I hold out very little hope that any of these potential new insights will actually occur… 

BruckJr wrote on November 21, 2017 at 8:11 am

A real piece of work.  See the video - https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/39174/

How in the world can the university employ this guy?

GLG wrote on November 21, 2017 at 9:11 am

Kahn is just what the U of I wants!

Just another person with the liberal disease, "Trump derangement Syndrome"


Objective Reporter wrote on November 21, 2017 at 9:11 am

After seeing the video, he has to be terminated by the university, right?

CallSaul wrote on November 21, 2017 at 11:11 am


He flew off the handle and overreacted and now the cops are rightfully involved.

But what --- y'know, 'objectively' --- is your reason for calling for him to be fired in such an objectively objective way with such objectiveness...?

Objective Reporter wrote on November 21, 2017 at 1:11 pm

My reason is because he threatened another person with bodily harm, stole somoene else's property, and damaged said property.  

CallSaul wrote on November 21, 2017 at 1:11 pm

So if anyone does all three of these things, they should be fired from their job...?

Or is it just one of these that should get a person fired...?

Two out of three...?

And does this only apply to university employees or does it apply to anyone in any job anywhere...?

Objective Reporter wrote on November 21, 2017 at 1:11 pm

Any job, anywhere.  I hesitate to quantify it, but the totality of these three actions makes it clear to me.

CallSaul wrote on November 21, 2017 at 2:11 pm

So threatening violence alone isn't a firable offense...

...e.g. when Trump said he'd like to punch a protestor in the face or that protestors should be carried out of his rallies on stretchers, that's not a deal breaker for you but this guy should lose his job for overreacting to their childish provocation...?

And call me subjective if you must, but somehow I doubt you'd actually support applying this rule in the real world as objectively as you'd like us to believe...

Objective Reporter wrote on November 23, 2017 at 9:11 am

Saul, here's a secret for you - I could not possibly care less what you believe.

CallSaul wrote on November 23, 2017 at 10:11 am

You cannot possibly fathom the depths of depression this news casts me into…

The future is now nothing but a dark abyss, devoid of the hope and sunshine and unicorns vomiting rainbows and puppies and kittens and all the other things that otherwise comfort and sustain me through these dark days…

It's doubtful I'll ever be able to recover from this, your latest contribution to our civil and respectful dialog on here. 

If I can somehow muster the strength to continue on, I'll be but a hollow shell of my former ebullient presence…

Here's an observation for you that was in never in any way a secret and that I'd have thought would have been ridiculously self evident even to a slow witted earthworm: I'm not the least bit interested in what you think of my beliefs or of my responses to your stale and doctrinaire rightwing ruminations. 

Second blindingly obvious fact for the obviousness challenged: you are obviously not my target audience...

...believe it or not, it's not actually all about you...

rsp wrote on November 21, 2017 at 3:11 pm

A theft charge requires the intent to permanantly deprive someone of their property. He never left with it, never tried to hide or conceal it.  At the very end of the video you can catch the guy saying the phone was broke while he was using it to make a call. He also says the screen was already cracked but it was cracked a little bit more. That phone was also in a case. It's an open question of how much damage it already had and how much occurred in this incident. It would be interesting to see the value of an already broken phone. It might only be $20.

As for those fighting words? Both sides were making threats.

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on November 22, 2017 at 8:11 pm

Dang........... Ill add cell phone expert to your already expanding resume.  Is there anything your not an expert in?

rsp wrote on November 23, 2017 at 8:11 am

You can see the case in the video, and everything else about the condition of it the owner says. It doesn't take an expert. As for the value of it, I have a box of used phones. Even used Iphones with a broken screen won't get you much.

Common Sense wrote on November 21, 2017 at 10:11 am

Is this our good friend Call?

Bystander wrote on November 21, 2017 at 12:11 pm
Profile Picture

Once again, CallSaul continues to violate the commenting policy of the News-Gazette with his endless personal attacks. When will the News-Gazette uphold its own standard and ban the prattling CallSaul from this forum?

CallSaul wrote on November 21, 2017 at 12:11 pm

What personal attack are you alleging I made...?

Be specific...


Bystander wrote on November 21, 2017 at 12:11 pm
Profile Picture

"It's not that I don't appreciate your continuing, ongoing, ceaseless and never ending constant invitations to live rent free in your head, but...well...actually I don't appreciate the offers so much...

I took a peek inside there --- it's musty, cramped, filled with retrograde ideology and moldy prejudices, bigotries and racism...

Not to mention a lot of obvious self loathing and piled high with decades old insecurities and over compensations...

Plus it reeks with an overpowering gag inducing stank...

Honestly, I don't know how you stand it in there day in and day out...such a nasty moldy old claptrap..."


CallSaul wrote on November 21, 2017 at 12:11 pm

And of course you ignore the constant and nasty personal attacks made by this commenter and your other fellow rightwing commenters on here...

Not to mention your own.

Typical rightwing comment cop scolding: attack only those to your left and ignore --- and in fact, join in on --- attacks from your fellow rightwingers.

And of course, demand that anyone who dares to disagree with you be banned from commenting if you can't somehow demand they be arrested and prosecuted.

Credibility is a tricky thing, huh...?

Common Sense wrote on November 21, 2017 at 1:11 pm

Am I the one referred to as "this commentator?"  When or where do I make personal attacks? It is you who generally begins most postings with "RWNJ troll," or something similar.

CallSaul wrote on November 21, 2017 at 2:11 pm

Oh my...


The smug sanctimony underlying the complete lack of self awareness is amazing...

The short answer: many many many times in many many many places.

For starters, just remind yourself of the comments you made under this article: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-11-13/police-look-would-be-health-clinic-arsonist.html

Common Sense wrote on November 21, 2017 at 9:11 pm

Wow, you call that personal attacks??? You certainly have a mighty broad definition. I guess, according to you, just being critical of someone amounts to a personal attack.

Is that so you can justify your constant hateful name calling? You can barely manage a post without resorting to it.

This is your representation of many, many, many..........?

CallSaul wrote on November 21, 2017 at 10:11 pm

So understanding the meaning of the words 'for starters' is really that big a challenge for you, huh…?

I'll leave it to others to check your commenting history and that of the other RWNJs on here and make up their own minds about the level of civility you actually display in practice.

That said, in the thread I cited, you claimed the rightwing terrorist who tried to firebomb a legal clinic in our town was 'just trying to emulate' the healthcare being provided at the clinic.

You equated 'you people,' meaning people who support women's constitutional rights to reproductive services — yes, including abortion — to the nazi murderers who carried out the holocaust…

And you mocked people who dare criticize Trump for bragging about grabbing women by the genitals and 'accidentally' walking in on naked teenage girls…

That's all just normal, acceptable criticism as far as you're concerned.

But you screech and cry and complain endlessly about your feelings being hurt over my comment above…?

Because of course there's never anything wrong with what anything you say about people you disagree with but whenever anyone dares to criticize you, you RWNJs melt down as predictably as Trump being an idiot every 5 minutes.

And for some reason you wonder why no one takes your whining little temper tantrums about your poor hurt feelings seriously…

Tom Napier wrote on November 24, 2017 at 7:11 pm

"Credibility is a tricky thing, huh...?"

How would you know?

Again, you set yourself up and I couldn't resist.  OK, ok.  I'll stop now.


CallSaul wrote on November 24, 2017 at 10:11 pm

Again...what are you even talking about...?

You're starting to sound as kookoo creepy and stalkerish as cjwhatever obssessively following me around and spewing nonsensical rantings...


Tom Napier wrote on November 26, 2017 at 5:11 pm

To be specific, some definitions of "credibility."

Oxford Dictionary: "The quality of being trusted and believed in."

Merriam-Webster: "1: the quality or power of inspiring belief. 2: capacity for belief."

Wikipedia: "Credibility has two key components: trustworthiness and expertise, which both have objective and subjective components. Trustworthiness is based more on subjective factors, but can include objective measurements such as established reliability. Expertise can be similarly subjectively perceived, but also includes relatively objective characteristics of the source or message (e.g., credentials, certification or information quality). Secondary components of credibility include source dynamism (charisma) and physical attractiveness."

I'll give an objective example. You are prolific in criticizing others' comments, as well as the commenter. Take a half-dozen or so articles in which you've commented multiple times. Count the number of positive, supportive replys; i.e. that would indicate belief and trust in what you're saying. Then count the number of negative or critical replys; i.e. that would indicate the absence of belief and trust in what you're saying. I would suggest the vast majority of commenters find little or no credibility in your commentary.  Again, you're not turning anyone to your side of the issue. 

And ... you might note that it's you who are replying to my comments, as if you're monitoring whatever I write. Some might call that trolling, but I'll stick to "monitoring." See the discussion of the pot and the kettle, above.

CallSaul wrote on November 27, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Again with the definitions, huh…?


So, according to your edict, I should write only 'supportive' comments of those I agree with and I shouldn't write any comment expressing disagreement with you or anyone else…

However, you obviously believe of course that you are perfectly free to criticize and write comments disagreeing with me or anyone else as you please…? 

Sure, Tom…

The RWNJ lack of self awareness compounded by their unbridled hypocrisy and most of all their insatiable sense of entitlement never ceases to amaze…

You also seem to think your decade of rantings about bringing back the racist old chicken feather 'chief' mascot, on top of your previous decades of rants on the matter, is somehow a model of rhetorical efficacy…?


And, uh, you do realize that you were replying to me, right…?

…or is that just the latest obvious aspect of reality you've taken to denying…?

Common Sense wrote on November 21, 2017 at 9:11 pm

Call seems to be parroting Rush Limbaugh. Makes sense, as he probably couldn't think of that on his own. Think he's a closet Rush listener?

zofaan wrote on November 21, 2017 at 2:11 pm

I know of this guy. I went to one of his "anarchist" meetings (radical reading group or something). 

He is a joke. He's not a real anarchist who cares about workers. He's more of an ANTIFA coward who would rather get off on picking street fights than on amassing the proletariat in furtherance of the cause.

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on November 21, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Poor  Jimmy.....always defending the SJW... if this guy was a conservative Jimmy would be screaming to the top of the world with indignation.....but it's a SJW so we can give give him an NTA for basically robbery........but I do wonder.....so what if he was a former airman?   does that give him some street cred?  What was his MOS?   hopefully not a clerk somewhere...c

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on November 23, 2017 at 6:11 pm



News flash...........


the PRESIDENT said that BEFORE the election.  He got elected anyway.


Might want to revisit your history.


Stay strong SJW

cjw61822@hotmail.com wrote on November 24, 2017 at 7:11 am

So some you do not know says that they do not care what you think and you respond with 5 paragraphs of response?


Dang.  I would hate to see what you write when you get dumped by ex girlfriends.............