I agree that you're right in your example, however I think this was only accepted and allowed to occur because it was in largely black neighborhoods where they deployed the military. They were already an 'other' of sorts so the general population saw them as a foreign threat that they didn't identify with and thus used military force against a criminal threat. It's the same as Katrina/New Orleans.

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.

I suspect the real reason it was acceptable to call in the military is because fairly high numbers of people had already died (and thousands were injured and the property damage was very high). Killing a few more to actually stop it becomes more palatable in the face of something like that.

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.

I agree but if you watch the footage from back then it's a case study in media framing bias. A lot of the stories focused on blacks rioting/looting white small businesses. Similar to how Katrina was framed.

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.

I do recall Katrina being framed that way by the media. But I also remember watching the LA riots and my impression was always that the military got sent in because it was so out of hand and not stopping. The military has also been sent in historically to protect blacks when schools were desegregated and for other Civil Rights incidents on behalf of blacks. Just because the media shows it's bias doesn't mean racial bias is why the military does the things it does.

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.

Good point, we can both find cases where violent response "works" or "doesn't work".

I don't think the military shot anyone. There is a paradox here and it's that the military response would put the republic in danger if it indeed turned violent. But the mere presence of the military put the riots down. As others have pointed out in this thread, the rioters are largely opportunists. They won't stand up to the army, but it is regrettable to society at large that the army had to be deployed to begin with.