Good? As a Californian who doesn't own a gun and hasn't fired one in 20 years, I'm unlikely to take advantage of that law, but I appreciate that it exists. A SWAT assault that isn't preceded by presenting a valid warrant is just a heavily-armed home invasion, and home owners absolutely should be able to respond to those. That was presumably already legal, but if "enshrining" it into law as you put it makes it pointedly obvious to the police that they can be legally shot dead if they don't follow a safe, legal procedure, great. Maybe swatting will be less of a thing then...
Edit: wow, just saw this part:
> Why did Indiana push this law?
The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that citizens had no legal right to resist police officers, even in a case of unlawful entry
What a crazy ruling. I guess this law is checks and balances in action in two ways...