INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An Indiana House committee on Wednesday advanced a proposal laying out when people would be legally justified in resisting police officers despite the objection of numerous law enforcement groups that say they're worried about more violence toward police.

The committee's action comes as legislators are trying to respond to a public uproar over an Indiana Supreme Court ruling last year that residents couldn't use force against officers even during an illegal entry.

The House courts committee voted 9-3 in favor of the proposal specifying that residents are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer.

Committee members adopted that version after prosecutor and police groups objected to a list of situations of when officers could legally enter a private home, which was included in the bill the Senate approved 45-5 last month.

Those same law enforcement groups also don't like the new version.

Steuben County Sheriff Tim Troyer said violence toward his officers in his rural northeastern Indiana county already has already spiked in recent years because of methamphetamine abuse.

"You interject that substance with that mindset that they have a pass now to resist law enforcement and I fear a genuine problem for our communities," Troyer said.

The state Supreme Court's police entry ruling brought Indiana law in line with most other states. But about 250 people attended a Statehouse rally against the decision, contending it infringed on their constitutional rights and contradicted centuries of precedent regarding homeowners' rights and the limits of police power.

Republican Sen. Michael Young of Indianapolis, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, said his intent wasn't to protect anyone who is breaking the law from a police officer who is acting properly.

"When things are done unlawfully, we have citizens should have the right to defend ourselves ... whether it's by anybody in government or anyone else, just to defend our property and ourselves," Young said.

The Supreme Court decision came in a case in which an Evansville man was convicted of misdemeanor resisting arrest for blocking and shoving a police officer who tried to enter his home without a warrant after his wife called 911 during an argument. The man was shocked with a stun gun and arrested. His wife told officers he hadn't hit her.

Courts committee Chairman Greg Steuerwald, R-Danville, said he expected more changes will be proposed on the bill when it is considered by the House next week. He said a House-Senate conference committee will likely be faced with working out a compromise version before the Legislature's expected March 9 adjournment.

The version advanced Wednesday outlines reasons for when a "person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary." Those reasons include protecting oneself or another person from the use of unlawful force and preventing an illegal entry of one's home or vehicle.

The bill specifies that the use of deadly force against a police officer is not justified unless the person reasonably believes the officer is acting illegally and is needed to prevent serious injury to themselves or another person.

David Powell, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said the provisions would give a legal defense to someone who attacked an undercover police officer who was trying to make an arrest.

"In their mind, they did not know this individual was a police officer, and if they hurt that police officer, their lawyer in court is going to say, 'He's undercover, he was out on the street and I didn't know he was a police officer," Powell said. "So we give that person who could have a battered and injured a police officer ... a pass with this bill."