So . . . if the police DO NOT place you under arrest, but want you to go to the station for questioning, do you have to go with them? I understand that they may decide to arrest you if you refuse to go and that resisting arrest is not going to turn out well for you, but I'm just wondering from a legal standpoint if you are required to go with them if they just say "come along to the station with us, you're going to answer some questions."
I ain't no lawyer, but I like to think I have at least somewhat of a practical understanding of the "mechanics" of something like this. Keeping that in mind, I'll happily give you a dollar so you can take that advice to McDonalds and get yourself a cup of coffee with it, because that'll be the only time it's going to be of any real value to you. (Translation: get yourself an actual attorney on your payroll for real legal advice.)
First of all, a shooting happened, which included a homocide. ("Homocide" doesn't mean "murder", by the way.)
So this WILL be investigated by the police. It would not be "unreasonable" (somewhat tongue-in-cheek here) to expect that the police would want to question the person who took part in the actual shooting event.
So...we can pretty much assume that this person WILL be questioned by the police...either voluntarily or otherwise. Either they come in to make a statement, or the police go out and provide taxi service for the event themselves, accompanied with any legal papers required to do so.
What OUGHT to happen, however, is that this person should HIRE an attorney to represent and advise him, before/during/after any such questioning.
The police will conduct an investigation. However, through much movie and TV show hype, many people often have this general misconception that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about".
THAT is WRONG on so many levels, the most important of which would be the LEGAL level.
The police aren't interested in investigations to "prove people innocent". They're interested in investigations to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to charge SOMEONE with a criminal act. Under the principle of enlightened self-interest, voluntarily providing such evidence against yourself is NOT the way to go, most especially through your own personal ignorance.
Which is why anybody under such circumstances NEEDS an attorney to represent them.
That this person shot, and apparently killed, someone is not in question apparently. And wouldn't likely be a fact disputed legally. Which means the questions to be answered involve will likely be centered around whether or not the shooting/killing was within the legal guidelines for justifiable homicide under the laws concerning the use of deadly force.
There are nuances to this which are not advisable to navigate without legal representation...because questioning by officials on such matters is not typically performed by people ignorant on the subject of how to ask the same question 20 different ways, looking for a specific response.