In memory of Sam Lively of the Tyler Police Department.
Summary
H.R. 1122 is a memorial resolution honoring Officer Sam Lively of the Tyler Police Department, who died on April 26, 2025, at age 25. The resolution recounts his background, including his education at The University of Texas at Tyler, his service with the Tyler Police Department beginning in 2023, and his involvement with his church and community. It recognizes his dedication to public service, his character, and the personal loss felt by his family, colleagues, and community.
The resolution directs the Texas House to pay tribute to Officer Lively’s memory, extend condolences to his family, and prepare an official copy for them. It also states that when the House adjourns on the day of adoption, it does so in memory of Sam Lively. As a commemorative resolution, it does not change substantive state law or amend any statutes; its effect is ceremonial and expressive rather than regulatory.
Impact
H.R. 1122 has no direct impact on Texas statutes, agency authority, or private rights. It is a House resolution that serves as an official expression of sympathy and recognition, with the practical effect of honoring Officer Lively and preserving the Legislature’s tribute in the official record. The only formal action it requires is the preparation of an enrolled copy for his family and the House’s adjournment in his memory.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding the resolution is uniformly positive and solemn. The bill was unanimously adopted by a rising vote of the House, indicating broad bipartisan support and no recorded opposition. The tone of the text is respectful and commemorative, emphasizing Officer Lively’s service, character, and the community’s grief at his death.
Contention
There is no notable policy contention in this resolution because it is a memorial measure rather than a substantive bill. The only discussion reflected in the available record is the unanimous adoption of the resolution, with no committee debate or recorded votes against it. Any differences that might arise would be limited to the customary legislative choice of wording in a memorial tribute, not to legal or policy disagreements.