Ed: Wrote this too quickly without thinking enough on it. I don't think violent response is the answer, but given the nature of the situation I'll shift my position to thinking it'd probably work in this case.
I'm not going to respond directly to this.
Rather, I'll point out that force is used because it is often effective.
There are innumerable instances of riots where the subsequent police/military crackdown actually suppressed the population.
The real question here is what makes London like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, or Syria today rather than like all those countries in the past where rebellions were quelled?
"The riots, beginning in the evening after the verdicts, peaked in intensity over the next two days, but ultimately continued for several days. A curfew and deployment of the National Guard began to control the situation; eventually U.S. Army soldiers and United States Marines were ordered to the city to quell disorder as well."
And to repeat my other comment: Military is supposed to protect a country from outside (military) attackers, police are supposed to protect from domestic (criminal) threats. When you make the military the police you make citizens the enemy the state of their own country.
Excerpt from the wikipedia article:
Fifty-three people died during the riots[24] with as many as 2,000 people injured. Estimates of the material losses vary between about $800 million and $1 billion. Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings, with fire calls coming once every minute at some points. Widespread looting also occurred. Stores owned by Korean and other Asian immigrants were widely targeted,[25] although stores owned by Caucasians and African Americans were targeted by rioters as well.
And it indicates Hispanics likely played a larger role than blacks:
Half of all riot arrestees and more than a third of those killed during the violence were Hispanic.
Now imagine any other ethnic riot in another city where this would be acceptable--it doesn't exist unless they are brown in a predominantly white city. The military would never be used against a majority of whites or even asians, but if you're brown or black it's accepted-- because they're constantly other-ed all the time and scapegoated.
Not entirely on topic, since the soldiers don't decide where they go, but while we are on the topic(s) of racism and the military: The US military tends to be more multi-racial/multi-cultural than most civilian social climes and there tends to be less racism in it. The joke in the military is that they are the "green" race -- ie the color of their uniform makes them all one "race", separate from the civilians who are typically not very welcoming of the military members stationed in their community yet still want to milk them for money. The loyalty to a cause larger than themselves and willingness to bleed and die for it seems to overcome differences that are often insurmountable in the minds of other people. That whole "I am willing to die defending you and you are willing to die defending me" paradigm is a commitment and a bond deeper than many families or lovers have. It makes things like skin color seem rather superficial and insignificant in comparison.
My ex was wonderfully non-racist and I became uncomfortably aware of just how much my mind had been poisoned from growing up in the Deep South when I finally met his best friend at a new duty station after months of hearing glowing things about the guy. The guy was black. My ex had never once mentioned that and the surprise showed on my face, which made for a very awkward meeting. It has been food for thought ever since about the topic of racism and I think I have grown as a person because of it.
A lot of that unrest is because of rent-a-mobs hired by military juntas. "Force" does not work because it is not supposed to.
IIRC, one of the accomplishments of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution was to intercept busloads of rent-a-mobs and pour immense amounts of free booze into them before the opposition figured out what was going on.