Non-violence is about respect

When you commit in non-violent actions, such as civil disobedience, non-cooperation, etc, you are placing yourself on a higher moral standard than your oppressor. You're telling him: "Look at me, this is how we should both act to get to an agreement". You are showing the "good example".
I can't deny that violent protest have their effect, but think about it, who are you attacking? Who are you killing? They are people who think they're right, but by killing them or being violent doesn't make your more legitimate to be heard. It is a cycle of revenge you are entering.
I keep reading in the pro-violence section that the French Revolution was a successful violent protest. I am French. This Revolution was NOT a success. After the king was executed, it was chaos. Robespierre, one of the leading revolutionaries at that time, was in charge. He became paranoiac, France was being attacked by Austria and other surrounding countries. So to "protect" the revolution he killed hundreds of innocent people. And the killings and chaos didn't stop till Napoleon came, with an Empire. What kind of success is that?
It took France about a century to become a Republic. If you compare with non-violent protests, look at King or Gandhi. Yes their death provoked riots and killings, but they got somewhere. The Open Housing Act was passed a week after King's death. Gandhi witnessed the independence of India.
I believe non-violence stands a chance and violence should be the last resource you should ever use. If you have time read some of Gandhi's books, it's quite interesting to see how he thinks, he's very different from what most of us think he was