Supreme Court Holds Firm On Barnes v. State

A controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision, Barnes v. State, earlier this year created a firestorm when the state's high court abrogated a long-held rule that a person had a right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry into their home by a police officer. In the wake of public outrage over the decision authored by Justice Steven David, Attorney General Greg Zoeller asked the Court to rehear the case "to allow for a more narrow ruling that would continue to recognize the individual right of reasonable resistance to unlawful entry." The Supreme Court today announced it is affirming its earlier ruling in a 4-1 decision authored by Justice David. Justice Rucker dissented. Justice Dickson, who dissented in the earlier decision, flipped to the majority this time. The General Assembly is already laying the groundwork to statutorily overturn the controversial decision. Legislation will no doubt be sent to the Governor next year in light of today's ruling. David's ruling says the Court didn't mean what its original opinion was interpreted to say:

“Our earlier opinion was not intended to, and did not, change that existing law about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures.” 
Attorney General Greg Zoeller seems satisfied by the clarification issued by the Court in today's ruling:

"The Indiana Supreme Court's ruling today means that individuals still have the common law right of reasonable resistance to an unlawful entry, though there is never justification for committing battery against a police officer. In volatile domestic violence situations, police have the right to enter a home to ensure safety of others, but today's ruling also means the individual has the right to stand against his locked door to protect his home and communicate with police outside without a physical altercation. While the Legislature considers whether to revise the existing statute, we respect the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling, which underscores that the individual's constitutional right remains in force," Zoeller said.

I'm  not sure how one can "reasonably resist" an unlawful entry into their home by a police officer without running the risk of committing battery on a law enforcement officer.