In this situation, the choice of helping the dog rather than the child who has been injured is debatable. Firstly, human life safety is higher than anything else. In emergency situations, humanitarian assistance should be given priority. If trampling on the lawn can prevent or reduce harm to children, necessary action should be taken, although it may have a certain impact on the lawn. Secondly, according to your description, the dog was the attacker of this incident and its behavior has caused damage. Therefore, although we sympathize with animals, we should not prioritize helping attackers while ignoring victims. This not only violates the humanitarian spirit, but may also be understood as a misjudgment of the nature of the incident and the responsible party. Finally, after trampling on the lawn, it is still necessary to properly handle all subsequent matters. This includes reporting incidents, providing medical assistance, cooperating with management investigations, and providing compensation based on the situation. Only on the premise of ensuring human life safety and fulfilling necessary responsibilities, can we consider how to assist attackers, such as taking them away from the scene to ensure safety. So, if it is intentional to help the dog and ignore the injured child, this choice is worth discussing. It may show sympathy for animals, but at the same time it overlooks the more important humanitarian spirit, which requires reflection. Saving lives in emergency situations and caring for students in daily life should be our common choice. Animal rights also need to be reflected on this basis. Overall, this is a complex situation. But personally, I do not recommend prioritizing assistance to attackers over assisting victims. That choice seems to deviate from the correct value judgment. But this is only my personal opinion and deserves further discussion. (Translated into English by machine)