I think that most of you are purposefully mis-interpreting this case and the ruling.
I believe that the ruling was that the homeowner had no right to assault the police officer, who was performing his duty. You can’t just run in the house and shut the door when a police officer shows up to investigate a complaint. Now, if you are already inside when the officer arrives, it may be a different story. The courts are not just going to rule it mutual combat when an officer is trying to investigate a complaint.
I think that we are missing a lot of the details, here.
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
“Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right.”
How has either of those sentences been misinterpreted?