My building has similar policies.
I have not opened the door for someone who seemed to be having trouble getting in (I didn’t block the door, I just didn’t cross the lobby to open it). But, if someone did push past me on the way in, I am not about to risk my safety following them. That is what the security cameras are for.
I don’t know about you, but from my own experiences, if I think someone is an actual threat to me, I am putting a physical barrier between us, not serving as that physical barrier (the exception being if I truly thought that they were an immanent physical threat to someone more vulnerable than me).
You don’t tail someone you think is truly dangerous. You don’t call the police on someone who has committed no crime (he had keys and used them and she only called after that, after he’d put a physical barrier between himself and a threat).
The cops themselves would tell you not to put your safety at risk over a condo board directive. Plus, any reasonable person would tell you that the directive is more “don’t go out of your way to grant access”, not “put yourself in the path of someone trying to come in”. Because no condo board wants the lawsuit when a tenant blocks a legitimate bad actor and gets hurt or killed in the process. In other words, when someone pulls the whole “my key’s not working / the buzzer seems to be broke” schtick", you don’t walk over and open the door for them.
The entire situation screams entitlement on her part, including (especially) this (from earlier linked Yahoo article):
Thornton said on the day in question, she had the building’s front door cracked to allow her dog outside access,
In other words, she wasn’t going out, she was blocking the entryway so her precious doggie could have outside time.
And clearly, her employer, who would have an idea about proper implementation of such security protocols didn’t agree with her excuse.