A disagreement over a groomsman eating with his hands grew into a fight that left two guests wounded, police said.
MILWAUKEE, Wis. — The confrontation began beside a tray of meatballs in the kitchen of a wedding hall, when a guest asked a groomsman to use a plate. Minutes later, two people had been shot, an armed man was running from the building and the bride was struggling to stop him from driving away, according to a criminal complaint.
Prosecutors allege that Thomas Redrick Williams, 41, fired during the June 20 fight at the Aria banquet hall on West Fond du Lac Avenue. Williams, who was described by witnesses as an associate of the groomsman, faces two counts of first-degree reckless injury with a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and bail jumping. A warrant was issued June 25 after police said he escaped on foot.
The complaint, as described by local news organizations, traces a rapid progression from a dispute about table manners to an alleged assault, an attempt by another guest to intervene and a shooting in a crowded celebration space. The sequence is based largely on witness statements and surveillance video. It remains an allegation, and the available accounts do not identify the groomsman or explain whether police expect to seek charges against him.
The bride’s 39-year-old cousin told investigators that she entered or was standing in the kitchen when she saw the groomsman eating meatballs directly with his hands. She instructed him to get a plate, according to her statement. Rather than comply or walk away, he allegedly struck her in the face. The reported punch changed the nature of the encounter and drew the woman’s brother-in-law into the dispute.
The brother-in-law began fighting with the groomsman after seeing or learning that the woman had been hit, according to the complaint. The available reports do not describe who else joined the struggle, how long it lasted or whether event workers tried to separate the men. They do indicate that several people were close enough to witness critical parts of the confrontation and later give statements to detectives.
The woman said she heard a shot during the fight and felt that she had been wounded. She was struck in the arm and leg, police said. Her 35-year-old brother-in-law reported hearing the gunfire and feeling pain at the back of his neck. Responding officers found both victims and arranged for them to be taken to a hospital. Authorities did not publicly provide detailed medical updates in the reports reviewed for this article.
Neither victim identified the groomsman as the shooter. The man who was wounded in the neck specifically told investigators that he did not believe the person he had been fighting fired the gun, according to the complaint. Witness attention instead turned to another man who had been near the kitchen and who was said to be associated with the groomsman. Police later named that man as Williams. One witness said she saw a man draw a handgun and fire twice in the direction of the people involved in the conflict. The bride, who had been able to see the fight through a service window, said she heard a shot and then saw a man she knew as “Boog” walking away from the kitchen with a firearm. The complaint said “Boog” was Williams’ nickname. Three witnesses, including the bride, later selected Williams from photo arrays.
The gunfire prompted a second, separate confrontation outside the building. The bride followed the armed man as he moved toward a black Chevrolet Escalade, according to her statement. She said she wanted to keep him from leaving. A struggle occurred near the vehicle, and she took its electronic key fob. Without it, the SUV could not be driven away. Williams then allegedly fled on foot as other people gathered nearby.
Building surveillance video documented part of that movement, according to reports. The footage showed a man in dark clothing leaving the hall while holding what appeared to be a gun. The bride was seen following him. Video also reportedly captured the activity around the Escalade and the man’s flight from the area after he was surrounded. The public descriptions do not say whether the recording clearly showed his face or the exact moment the shots were fired.
Milwaukee officers arrived at about 9:45 p.m. The bride handed police the key fob she had taken. Investigators secured the Escalade, which was registered to Williams’ wife, according to the complaint. The vehicle became a focus of the investigation after witnesses linked the suspected shooter to it and described his unsuccessful effort to leave in it.
Williams’ wife told police that she kept a Taurus 9 mm handgun in the glove compartment, according to reports describing the complaint. Officers searching the SUV found a Taurus 9 mm pistol on the front passenger floor rather than inside the glove box. They also reported finding a mobile phone and an envelope addressed to Thomas Williams. The reports did not say whether his wife had attended the wedding or witnessed the confrontation.
The recovery of a handgun does not by itself establish that it was used in the shooting. Authorities had not publicly released results from fingerprint, DNA or ballistic examinations when the case was reported. No account reviewed for this article said whether investigators found fired cartridge cases in the kitchen, recovered bullets from the scene or compared any such evidence with the weapon taken from the Escalade.
The complaint nevertheless presents a case built from several independent strands. Witnesses described the same general sequence, three people identified Williams in photo lineups, security footage reportedly showed a man leaving with an apparent gun, and an SUV linked to Williams’ household contained a handgun and an envelope bearing his name. Prosecutors relied on that evidence to seek charges and an arrest warrant.
First-degree reckless injury under Wisconsin law requires prosecutors to prove that a defendant recklessly caused great bodily harm under circumstances showing utter disregard for human life. The offense is a Class D felony. The complaint adds a dangerous-weapon allegation to both injury counts. Those legal labels describe what prosecutors must try to establish; they do not resolve factual disputes or prove who fired the shots.
The felon-in-possession count alleges that Williams had a prior felony conviction and knowingly possessed a firearm. The public reports do not identify the conviction underlying that charge. The bail-jumping count indicates that Williams was allegedly subject to court-ordered release conditions in another case when the wedding shooting occurred. Details about that earlier case and the condition he allegedly broke were not included in the reports. The groomsman’s alleged punch is a separate piece of the chronology, but the public record summarized by news outlets leaves his status uncertain. No name, charge or arrest involving him was reported. The complaint also does not appear to allege that he planned the shooting or knew that another person was armed. Describing him as the person whose confrontation preceded the gunfire does not establish legal responsibility for Williams’ alleged actions.
The motive attributed to the shooting also remains limited. Witnesses described a fight that developed after the woman challenged the groomsman’s conduct and was allegedly punched. Prosecutors have not publicly alleged that Williams arrived at the wedding intending to shoot anyone. The available material instead presents the gunfire as occurring amid the physical struggle, but it does not explain what Williams allegedly said, whom he intended to strike or why he became involved. Police initially appealed for information as they worked to identify the person responsible. Investigators later obtained the complaint and warrant naming Williams. No defense lawyer was listed in the reports, and there was no public account of Williams responding to the allegations. Because he had not appeared before a judge in the new case, no plea had been entered and no bond conditions had been set on those charges.
The case remained unresolved more than a month after the reception. Williams was still described in the most recent reports reviewed for this article as wanted on the warrant. The victims’ names had not been released, and authorities had not announced whether either person faced lasting injuries. The confrontation that began over a plate was therefore still moving toward its first courtroom stage, with key forensic findings and the suspect’s account not yet public.
Author note: Last updated July 26, 2026.