UPDATED: San Marcos 24-year-old dies after assault by bouncer on the square

Sierra Martin | Managing Editor

SAN MARCOS – On Wednesday, Dec. 22, 2021, the Hays County Sheriff’s Office arrested Milton Heyliger (DOB 11/17/1996) for Manslaughter following a San Marcos Police Department investigation into an assault that resulted in the death of 24-year-old Emmett Worsham of La Grange, TX.

Emmett Worsham, photo attributed to the Worsham family GoFundMe.

In the early hours of Dec. 12, 2021, Worsham was denied entry to the Red Room Social Lounge in downtown San Marcos when there was an altercation with the bouncer, Milton Heyliger. According the city of San Marcos, Heylinger struck Worsham several times, causing him to lose his footing and hit his head on the concrete. 

“Why he was assaulted will never be justifiable,” his brother Mclean Worsham said in a GoFundMe created to support the family with medical expenses.

“Surveillance videos show that not only was the attack unwarranted, but it involved the use of an extreme amount of force,” said Worsham’s brother. “My brother Emmett has never been in a fight in his young life because not only is Emmett the kindest and most caring person I’ve ever met, but he has compassion for every living thing.”

Worsham was transported to Ascension Seton Hays Hospital in Kyle, where he succumbed to his injuries on Dec. 19, 2021. He had recently graduated from Texas State University with a bachelor’s degree in biology.

Heyliger was initially booked on a charge of Aggravated Assault Causing Serious Bodily Injury and released on bond. A warrant for Manslaughter was issued for his arrest following Worsham’s death. As of this release, Heyliger remains in the Hays County Jail and a bond has not been set.

Milton Haylinger mug shot. Photo credited to the Hays County Jail.

In a written statement, the Red Room Lounge told KXAN that witnesses said Emmett was verbally assaulting and threatening a woman outside of the lounge and tried to force his way to skip the line.

“He then started threatening/assaulting Heyliger, which resulted in him getting hit and losing footing off of a sidewalk ledge and hitting his head on the street,” the lounge told KXAN. “The female patron Worsham verbally assaulted was actually the one to call 911 as soon as the incident happened.”

Since this altercation took place, San Marcos Police Chief Stan Standridge has asked the City of San Marcos for funding to place cameras in several areas around the downtown square, which can be packed with people in the late-night hours. 

Worsham’s family has started a GoFundMe to assist in covering medical and funeral expenses. 

San Marcos Corridor News has reached out to SMPD and the Red Room Social Lounge for comment. This article has been corrected to include additional information provided by the city of San Marcos.

Related Articles


  1. Milton Heyliger
    5′ 10″ 300 lbs
    aka Milton Emanuel Anthony
    prior criminal history:
    2019 arrested in Austin for random smashing of multiple vehicles with baseball bat
    and for assaulting the man who tried to stop him. And now murder . . . who could have guessed?
    Although Hays county “magistrate” Ben Moore knew the victim was in critical condition, he
    nevertheless released him because. . . well, if the guy dies, he dies.

    As a pedestrian who daily walks past the Red Room at 106 E Hopkins, from the day it
    opened I always smell pungeunt marijuana and dried alcohol. I hope the family finds
    an attorney to prevail against this noble business and the City of San Marcos.
    The City has made it clear for many years to all downtown residents that the bar owners
    hold the power–as even includes the dank, dirty Red Room as a “Bring Your Own Bottle” Bar.

    1. Not murder. Manslaughter. He will get his day in court and face the charges. But based on the facts presented here…. Threaten violence and receive violence means not murder. Sounds like the kid was probably drunk, picked a fight, but couldn’t back it up.

      I agree that the Square probably needs cameras. I fully support that idea.

      1. Sir, please don’t start with your “based on the facts presented here”
        argument when, as here, there is no fact other the man’s death at the
        hands of another. If you are trying to tell us what you think, then simply
        disclose your thoughts honestly– that you weren’t there, that you didn’t
        see anything, and you don’t think it fair to repeat the self-serving narrative
        provided by the peop who put the killer into action. We’re also aware of
        your personal need to be heard. And wwe do appreciate you sharing with
        us your epiphany of how “He will get his day in court.”

        It happened in a public place, namely a sidewalk–not on private property.
        Thus any use of force by Heyliger in role of agent for the property is withheld.
        Heyliger must show that Wortham physically assaulted him or another, and this
        presently undisclosed videotape fact is all that separates his charge from murder.
        Lasltly, there is no fact question to whether the City for years has ignored the
        unfenced condition of the elevated sidewalk from which Wortham fell and thereby sustained his mortal injury. Should the charge be elevated to murder, the defense
        will undoubtedly call this out.

        Let’s hope Wortham’s survivor’s bring suit against the City for negligence per se.
        But for the lack of that railing, the story would have simply ended as boys will be boys.

        1. 1. The right of self defense has no boundaries. If he threatened the bouncer as is reported he was threatening the woman, the bouncer had a right to respond.

          2. How could the city possibly be at fault here? It was a fight between two adults. Brief enough that 911 couldn’t have even been called. Sidewalk height? Nah… Sidewalks are for feet. Concrete beats at any distance.

          3. Spell check. Looks like you were doing a bit of day drinking.

          4. Merry Christmas.

          1. Verbal jabs or threatening can not be used as a reason for needing self defense anywhere except your home.

          2. @Joshua Wood… Pretty sure that’s not how that works.

            In most cases, self-defense is only considered justified when employed in response to an immediate threat. This includes verbal threats, but they must put the victim in fear of immediate physical harm. Insults, offensive terminology, sexual harassment, and other verbal abuse that do not threaten immediate harm do not usually justify self-defense. (Note this
            does not mean that hate speech, sexual harassment, or other verbal abuse is not unlawful or worthy of prosecution. It just means violence is not a legally justifiable response.)” — Digby Law Firm

            “Threatening” (a word we have both used and apparently agree upon) has a high likelihood of “put[ting] the victim in fear of immediate physical harm.”

          3. Robert you are indeed ignorant of the law when you say self defence knows bo boundaries. I suggest you look back in history before that idiot Louis Gohmert and the idiots in the TX. Govt. enacted open carry without any training on the the LAWFUL USE OF FORCE that was taught in the previous taught concealed carry classes.

          4. Mr. Elmer,
            Rep. Louis Gohmert is a United States Representative. He has nothing to do with the Texas Legislature that passed Open Carry.

          5. Mr. Elmer,
            Although Rep. Louis Gohmert is a United States Representative and has nothing to do with the Texas Legislature that passed Open Carry, your fundamental evaluation of Holeman’s ignorance remains dead accurate.

            He needs attention and he gets it from himself, here.

          6. @ Elmer & Valerie… What do guns have anything to do with this bar fight? (red herring)

            Though I think there was a case earlier this year in Wisconsin that showed juries do indeed believe that shooting & killing someone can be justified when there is a reasonable threat of physical harm. Additionally there was a case in Florida about a decade ago that showed similar. So, it is a pretty well established national standard.

  2. Chief Standridge,

    You possess a videotape that settles the question of who assaulted who, but now use this tragedy
    for purposes of creating a “crisis” requiring MORE cameras in our lives.

    Sir, why not act upon the downtown lawbreakers who are known to you and your subordinates?
    Such as the rental scooters littering our sidewalks in direct violation of City Ordinance 2020-28.
    The City in writing recently admitted placing those lawbreakers under your protection.
    Chief, we’ve heard through the grapevine that you’re getting tired of your new masters.
    Much as the Director of Finance for the City Of San Marcos, who after only 11 months on the job
    yesterday announced her resignation arising from what you already know, namely that
    the City is manipulating more than just financial records, and violating more than state law.

    Moral: To “flee screaming” under reasonable circumstances, is not a bad thing. Ms. Kalka only wants
    to remain in control of her reputation. What about you, Chief?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button