What you liked and what you didn't is entirely immaterial. You have been claiming for the last two pages that Batman v Superman goes entirely against what has been shown before, and you've argued this with ever increasing obstinacy and fervor.
Now, don't get me wrong: it didn't have to come to this. If you had said that you hadn't seen such an interpretation before, that would have been okay with me. If you had said that you disliked the movie because you weren't used to this Batman, I'd be somewhat miffed but wouldn't have said anything. All of these are subjective. But you said that they failed to "get it right", and used it as an actual criticism of the movie; that is what I object to, because it is demonstrably wrong.
You are -somewhat- right that the portrayal of Batman as a violent thug is uncommon. It is also uncommon, statistically speaking, to have a Batman who has no problem with "accidentally" killing his enemies. But that kind of Batman provably exists, and he exists in immensely popular, acclaimed and enduring stories, that still inform public perception of him. Stories which absolutely form part of the character and, let's repeat, you haven't seen. It isn't the movie's fault that you are criticizing it from a place of ignorance. Nobody is obligated to take you seriously if you do shit like this.
You are self-admittedly blasting the movie for taking after singular, unique, good stories, because you would prefer it if it showed an average version of Batman. Another word for 'average' is 'mediocre'. I know we'll disagree on this, but I actually really appreciate that Snyder didn't aim for mediocrity even if the end result is lacking. If you don't, if you had wanted a mediocre Batman, you are free to rewatch the literal ton of Batman stuff you've seen already. The children's cartoon is that way, sir.