The riots came after King left town. I remember.
Well then, I guess telling everyone to protest non-violently caused riots, right? Because that's your point, right? That teaching non-violence leads to riots - right?
I mean, otherwise you'd have to come up with another explanation, like maybe King went to hot spots that were threatening violence anyway. Maybe he went there to try to calm things down - and maybe he did. Maybe the riots weren't anywhere near what they would have been because he went there and preached non-violent resistence. And maybe those riots were cause by Whites trying to incite Blacks by beating them or shooting them. You know, like THOUSANDS of Blacks have testified to having happened back then?
What exactly are you trying to support here? Really - what? And WHY?