Dangerous dogs act, should it not be dangerous owners act?

An animal's nature is an animal's nature. I had a German Shepherd with epilepsy. After a seizure, he was scared because he didn't know where he was. He felt threatened by the other dogs and us, who were in the house, and for those moments he did not recognize us. He did nothing. He was NOT aggressive because he was not an aggressive dog. 
This hoopla and ignorance about pit bull terriers is sickening, specifically in the current case of Bruce, taken from his home in Northern Ireland to JAIL. Please. Let the dog be returned to his family as he has done nothing wrong except be a pit bull. (I think?) We have civil rights acts to educate people not to judge people by the color of their skin. Is this something we need to do? We can't single out people so now let's focus on something else to pick on? I can understand a precaution about an aggressive dog. Give the owners a chance to keep that dog in check. But this situation is ridiculous, inhumane, ignorant and outrageous. Release Bruce in Northern Ireland.

Just as any animal dogs have characteristics that they turn to when in fear or they feel in danger. They are not made to be pets and when they commit and act that is classed as dangerous then they should be taken out of public attention and should not be a part of society.

The owner holds some responsibility yet the dog is an animal and it will always return to its natural instincts. This idea of natural instinct can not be controlled by an owner or another human being for that matter and so the blame can not always be put on the owner.