--Response has to be proportionate to the threat. Savagely beating a man into unconsciousness because he touched your shoulder as you disrupted the workplace with stimming is not a proportionate reaction. It is inappropriate for anyone to touch you while at work but it is not illegal nor is it life-threatening. You argue that Lissa's mental issues mean she can't process such incidents properly - ask the person to step away, go to human resources, etc. - and therefore her reactions are acceptable because "no one touches the faerie." It is intolerable that Lissa would be permitted to behave this way legally because it gives her a blank check to potentially kill anyone who brushes up against her, reaches out instinctively if they or she were tripping or falling, etc.
--Lissa could beat the shit out of any woman she wants to given this blank check. Aversion to her beating a man unconscious because someone misunderstood her dancing because she refuses to control her stimming in the workplace is not a feminist issue. I'd have the same level of disgust had the manager been female.
--Being autistic does not give Lissa the right to demand that she be able to physically harm people who upset her. Morally this is indefensible and you know it. That you are defending it is actually a sign to me that you know it is false because otherwise you'd be tacitly admitting that you are just fine with similar arrangements being made in other workplaces. Many autistic people hate direct eye contact. Won't it be neat if the next time you go to the breakroom at work a coworker beats you until your teeth break because you made eye contact. Hey, it's a valid thing, you know! People trigger warn for posting pictures wherein they are directly looking at the camera out of concern for people who have an autistic aversion to eye contact or being looked at. If Lissa can beat her co-worker for touching her shoulder, your coworker can beat you for making eye contact. Just be sure not to think you've signed away any legal rights when the paramedics unload you in the ER.
--No workplace is able legally to accommodate a single worker's disability by forcing every other employee to sign away their rights to legal and civil redress in the face of assault or battery. Period. End stop. Game over. Murray's fantasy cannot happen in real life. No corporation will take on that sort of liability by having someone with so little self control in the office and no legal department on the planet would for a moment suggest that employees should be asked to surrender their rights in order to let a single employee skip and hop and piss and shit and stim and occasionally code because that person is sooo brilliant.
@Meowthkip has many of you pegged correctly - it appears you're buying into this fantasy because it enables you to fantasize about a world wherein you can more or less do whatever you want and people support even your worst behaviors.
--Even if Lissa's workplace in defiance of all known law and sanity asked their employees to sign away their legal rights to redress if Lissa goes faerie Hulk smash on them, that isn't a legally binding contract because it is illegal to ask people to sign away their rights. I guarantee you the moment that man woke up in the hospital he would have been receiving offers from civil attorneys to sue the everloving fuck out of the corporation that permitted onsite a person so unstable that touching her lands you in the hospital. Everyone at Corporation Inc. could have signed papers that indemnifies the company in the event that Lissa loses her shit, but they have no value when terrible things happen. A recent example of this in action occurred on a reality show where contestants were made to sign away their rights in the event of assault from other cast members - no specific cast member names but generic statement of those working for the show and the parent company. Two male cast members sexually assaulted a drunk and passed out female cast member with a toothbrush in front of other cast members and crew. She had signed all the paperwork before hand yet when she learned what had happened she was able to sue, indemnity paperwork be damned, and won.
--Corporations will ask people to sign such paperwork even though they know it has no legal enforcement because it deters lawsuits over trivial matters and such paperwork is never specific to a particular employee because that in and of itself is a legal admission from the corporation that they know they are bringing a dangerous person into the office, putting other people at risk. Making employees sign away their rights not to be assaulted by Lissa is openly admitting that she's so dangerous they need a legal out just by having her inside the building and leaves them open to more liability than they would have had in the first place.
