^The point I was trying to make was that it's fortunate (for the rioters) that the UK is responding to the unrest in a more restrained and balanced fashion than the US normally does when confronted with similar situations.
Most of our police forces (municipal, State, Federal) coordinate with a remarkable and frightening degree of speed and efficiency whenever life or property is at risk. And with the widespread creation of "special task units" (i.e. 'paramilitary police' even though they don't like to call them that) on all levels, it's a small matter for US police to respond with any and everything from bullhorns to combat grade armored vehicles and air support.
And the "right" of US police forces to "respond with deadly force" has long been sanctioned, both by custom, and and by law. So the police already have the tools and the authority. There's no handwringing or debates on that score. And it's almost always left up to the police "responding at the scene" as to whether or not the use of deadly force is needed.
So violent protest is a far more dangerous game over here. Especially since the standard operating procedure for handling major civil disturbances is to stop the disturbance, clear the streets, and let the hospitals, courts, and politicians deal with the aftermath.
In short - it gets really ugly really fast in these parts.
----------
Regarding US military: True. Many of the professional troops, plus a goodly portion of the federally funded State militias, are deployed overseas. But there's plenty more where these lads and lassies came from. The current deployments are just the volunteers. The only reason they're the size they are is because of cost constraints and the intense dislike of military drafts by the general public. It's definitely not because of any squeamishness on the incumbent government to send them forth to wreak havoc whenever humanitarian, political or (lately) business considerations call for the use of force.
